Author
Topic: Honorius and Pastor Aeternus (Read 23758 times)

It might be that a study on Pastor Aeternus in itself is overdue, but I thought of this in reference to this thread:http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29933.msg473254/topicseen.html#msg473254I'll start with what the Vatican says about itself now. The bolded is what is the bare minimum of what the Vatican says is infallible dogma ex cathedra, but, Lord wiling, I'll be dealing with the rest too, as we should-particularly given that the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

Session 4 : 18 July 1870

First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ

Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting record.

1. The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls [37], in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption, determined to build a Church in which, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one faith and charity.

2. Therefore, before he was glorified, he besought his Father, not for the apostles only, but also for those who were to believe in him through their word, that they all might be one as the Son himself and the Father are one [38].

3. So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39], even as he had been sent by the Father [40], in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.

4. In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.

5. Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the Church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation [41].

6. And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the Church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation, we judge it necessary, with the approbation of the Sacred Council, and for the protection, defense and growth of the Catholic flock, to propound the doctrine concerning the 1. institution, 2. permanence and 3. nature of the sacred and apostolic primacy, upon which the strength and coherence of the whole Church depends.

7. This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole Church.

8. Furthermore, we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord's flock.

Chapter 1 On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter

1. We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord.

2. It was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said You shall be called Cephas [42], that the Lord, after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God, spoke these words:

Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [43] .

3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44].

4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.

5. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the Church, and that it was through the Church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.

6. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.

Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45].

2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46].

3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47].

4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48].

5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].

4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due." [51]

6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the Apostolic See or by its authority concerning the government of the Church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff

1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.

2. So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church [55], cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion [56].

What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:"The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled." [57]

Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence:"The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church." [58]

3. To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.

4. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59].

5. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.

6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60].

7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

8. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.

9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Given at Rome in public session, solemnly held in the Vatican Basilica in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy, on the eighteenth day of July, in the twenty-fifth year of Our Pontificate.

The holy, great, and Ecumenical Synod which has been assembled by the grace of God, and the religious decree of the most religious and faithful and mighty Sovereign Constantine, in this God-protected and royal city of Constantinople, New Rome, in the Hall of the imperial Palace, called Trullus, has decreed as follows....The holy and Ecumenical Synod further says, this pious and orthodox Creed of the Divine grace would be sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean Theodorus, who was Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were Archbishops of this royal city, and moreover, Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome...has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris, Severus, and Themistius, and endeavouring craftily to destroy the perfection of the incarnation of the same our Lord Jesus Christ, our God, by blasphemously representing his flesh endowed with a rational soul as devoid of will or operation. Christ, therefore, our God, has raised up our faithful Sovereign, a new David, having found him a man after his own heart, who as it is written, “has not suffered his eyes to sleep nor his eyelids to slumber,” until he has found a perfect declaration of orthodoxy by this our God-collected and holy Synod

Definition of the Holy Sixth Ecumenical Council

Quote

The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters...to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations 343of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul....we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines. We have also examined the synodal letter of Sophronius of holy memory, some time Patriarch of the Holy City of Christ our God, Jerusalem, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and with the Apostolic teachings, and with those of the holy approved Fathers. Therefore we have received it as orthodox and as salutary to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and have decreed that it is right that his name be inserted in the diptychs of the Holy Churches.

The Sentence of the Sixth Ecumenical Council Against the Monothelites

Quote

In the name of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour, the most pious Emperor, the peaceful and Christ-loving Constantine, an Emperor faithful to God in Jesus Christ, to all our Christ-loving people living in this God-preserved and royal city...In the name of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour, the most pious Emperor, the peaceful and Christ-loving Constantine, an Emperor faithful to God in Jesus Christ, to all our Christ-loving people living in this God-preserved and royal city...He, the Emperor, had therefore convoked this holy and Ecumenical Synod, and published the present edict with the confession of faith, in order to confirm and establish its decrees...As he recognized the five earlier Ecumenical Synods, so he anathematized all heretics from Simon Magus, but especially the originator and patrons of the new heresy, Theodore and Sergius; also Pope Honorius, who was their adherent and patron in everything, and confirmed the heresy...and ordained that no one henceforth should hold a different faith, or venture to teach one will and one energy. In no other than the orthodox faith could men be saved. Whoever did not obey the imperial edict should, if he were a bishop or cleric be deposed; if an official, punished with confiscation of property and loss of the girdle; if a private person, banished from the residence and all other cities.

The Imperial Edict Posted in the Third Atrium of the Great Church Near What is Called Dicymbala to Enforce the Definition of the Sixth Ecumenical Council

Quote

Many years to the Emperor! Many years to Constantine, our great Emperor! Many years to the Orthodox King! Many years to our Emperor that maketh peace! Many years to Constantine, a second Martian! Many years to Constantine, a new Theodosius! Many years to Constantine, a new Justinian! Many years to the keeper of the orthodox faith! O Lord preserve the foundation of the Churches! O Lord preserve the keeper of the faith!...To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!...To all heretics, anathema! To all who side with heretics, anathema!

May the faith of the Christians increase, and long years to the orthodox and Ecumenical Council!

Acclamation of the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council

Quote

We affirm that in Christ there be two wills and two operations according to the reality of each nature, as also the Sixth Synod, held at Constantinople, taught, casting out Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Macarius, and those who agree with them, and all those who are unwilling to be reverent

Decree of the Seventh Ecumenical Council

Quote

And now having carefully traced the traditions of the Apostles and Fathers, we are bold to speak. Having but one mind by the inbreathing of the most Holy Spirit, and being all knit together in one, and understanding the harmonious tradition of the Catholic Church, we are in perfect harmony with the symphonies set forth by the six, holy and ecumenical councils; and accordingly we have anathematised the madness of Arius,...also anathematised the idle tales of Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius; and the doctrine of one will held by Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, and Pyrrhus, or rather, we have anathematised their own evil will.

It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

In his letter to the Emperor that was read to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Pope Agatho (678— 681), asserted the infallibility of the apostolic see and stated that he and all of his predecessors, thus inclusive of Honorius, "have never ceased to exhort and warn them (i.e. the monothelites) with many prayers, that they should, at least by silence, desist from the heretical error of the depraved dogma" (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 328—339). Honorius did indeed resist the heresy insofar as he urged "silence" with regard to the expression "one operation," which he rightly considered Eutychian.

The council professed its agreement with Agatho's letter anathematized any who rejected it, and said its condemnations were in accordance with it. Therefore, any conciliar condemnation of Honorius must be understood in light of such agreement. Consequently, since Agatho counted Honorius among his orthodox predecessors, so too did the council.

In typical fashion, the Vatican apologists hint that this letter is infallible: "was read to the Sixth Ecumenical Council...asserted the infallibility of the apostolic see...The council professed its agreement with Agatho's letter anathematized any who rejected it, and said its condemnations were in accordance with it." The Vatican Apologists, while refraining from calling it ex cathedra, proceed to act as if it is ex cathedra: "Therefore, any conciliar condemnation of Honorius must be understood in light of such agreement."

In this connection it must be noted that although Pastor Aeternus claims "On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff" "That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching....the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared," it does not cite any Ecumenical Council. It instead cites the Council of Constantinople voided by the true Eighth Council of IV Constantinople (879), the Formula of Hormizdas (which even the Archbishop of Thessalonica, still under Rome's jurisdiction, IIRC tore in two and trampled underfoot), which, like the next "authorities" (the Emperor Michael Paeleologos; Florence), the pope of Rome instructed to impose on the bishops in the East by force. The Vatican is very selective on what Caesaropapism it, a state unto itself (Papal States 1870/Vatican City State now), condemns.

4:3 "To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received." 4 "It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing."5. "The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions."6 "For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles""Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."7 "This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell."

Well, given this, it is not hard to see how the Pope St. Agatho's Letter can be seen as ex cathdra. However, it is also easy to see how pope Honorius' letters, condemned explicitely by the Fifth Ecumenical Councils, also meet this criteria of ex cathedra.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

It had been a while shince I read Pastore Aeternus, the Dogmatic Constition that proclaimed the pope of Rome (then the head of state of the Papal States, including Rome). It having come up, I was reminded that it summarizes the issues about the Ultramontanist views against Orthodox belief in a nice summary. I then looked to see if it had ever been dealt systematically here. Not finding anything, I thought I'd start it off.

The bolded is what is the bare minimum of what the Vatican says is infallible dogma ex cathedra, but, Lord wiling, I'll be dealing with the rest too, as we should-particularly given that the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

Session 4 : 18 July 1870

First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ

Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting record.

1. The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls [37], in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption, determined to build a Church in which, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one faith and charity.

2. Therefore, before he was glorified, he besought his Father, not for the apostles only, but also for those who were to believe in him through their word, that they all might be one as the Son himself and the Father are one [38].

3. So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39], even as he had been sent by the Father [40], in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.

4. In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.

5. Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the Church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation [41].

6. And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the Church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation, we judge it necessary, with the approbation of the Sacred Council, and for the protection, defense and growth of the Catholic flock, to propound the doctrine concerning the 1. institution, 2. permanence and 3. nature of the sacred and apostolic primacy, upon which the strength and coherence of the whole Church depends.

7. This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole Church.

8. Furthermore, we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord's flock.

Chapter 1 On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter

1. We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord.

2. It was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said You shall be called Cephas [42], that the Lord, after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God, spoke these words:

Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [43] .

3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44].

4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.

5. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the Church, and that it was through the Church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.

6. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.

Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45].

2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46].

3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47].

4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48].

5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].

4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due." [51]

6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the Apostolic See or by its authority concerning the government of the Church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff

1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.

2. So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church [55], cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion [56].

What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:"The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled." [57]

Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence:"The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church." [58]

3. To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.

4. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59].

5. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.

6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60].

7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

8. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.

9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Given at Rome in public session, solemnly held in the Vatican Basilica in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy, on the eighteenth day of July, in the twenty-fifth year of Our Pontificate.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Well, given this, it is not hard to see how the Pope St. Agatho's Letter can be seen as ex cathdra. However, it is also easy to see how pope Honorius' letters, condemned explicitely by the Fifth Ecumenical Councils, also meet this criteria of ex cathedra.

It might be relevant to take a look at what some Catholic theologians have to say about ex cathedra and infallibility declarations. Father Sullivan is a leading theological authority on the magisterium, who wrote: Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church (Paulist, 1983) and Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Church Documents (Paulist, spring 1996).See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_A._SullivanAccording to Father Sullivan: “If it were already evident that the Catholic bishops throughout the world were in agreement in proposing a particular doctrine as definitively to be held, no doubt the papal teaching of the same doctrine would participate in the infallibility of such an exercise of the ordinary universal magisterium. However, if it were not otherwise evident that there was such a consensus of the whole episcopal college, would a papal declaration suffice to establish that fact, and would such a papal declaration, though not an ex cathedra definition, be an infallible act of papal magisterium?.....Canon law states that no doctrine is understood as infallibly defined unless this fact is clearly established (nisi id manifeste constiterit). Although canon 749.3 speaks only of doctrine that is infallibly defined, the same requirement would hold for the claim that a doctrine had been infallibly taught by the ordinary universal magisterium, since the consequences for the faithful are the same in either case….What must be "manifestly established," when the claim is made that a doctrine has been taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium, is that not only the pope, but the whole body of Catholic bishops as well, are proposing the same doctrine as one which the faithful are obliged to hold in a definitive way. I do not see how it could be said that a papal declaration, of itself, without further evidence, would suffice to establish this fact.”‘Recent theological observations on magisterial documents and public dissent’, by Francis A. Sullivan, Theological Studies, vol. 58, September 1997, pp. 509-515.

It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

Well, given this, it is not hard to see how the Pope St. Agatho's Letter can be seen as ex cathdra. However, it is also easy to see how pope Honorius' letters, condemned explicitely by the Fifth Ecumenical Councils, also meet this criteria of ex cathedra.

It might be relevant to take a look at what some Catholic theologians have to say about ex cathedra and infallibility declarations. Father Sullivan is a leading theological authority on the magisterium, who wrote: Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church (Paulist, 1983) and Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Church Documents (Paulist, spring 1996).

...the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

I dont understand this. Why would his anathema depend on whether he spoke ex cathedra? The council made no mention of papal infalability or speaking ex cathedra. The council simply said he was a heretic and anathematized him. The EO and RC consider that council to be valid. To me, that means a few things.

1). The pope does not have universal and supreme authority.2). Union with him is not necessary for orthodoxy. Only orthodoxy is necessary for orthodoxy.3). Honorius was a heretic.

...the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

I dont understand this. Why would his anathema depend on whether he spoke ex cathedra? The council made no mention of papal infalability or speaking ex cathedra. The council simply said he was a heretic and anathematized him. The EO and RC consider that council to be valid. To me, that means a few things.

1). The pope does not have universal and supreme authority.2). Union with him is not necessary for orthodoxy. Only orthodoxy is necessary for orthodoxy.3). Honorius was a heretic.

Or it could mean that the council was in error when it anathematized him. Or if Hornorius really was a heretic, then he wasn't the Pope, so one need not be in communion with him.

Since there is no direct evidence that Honrius was a heretic, then it's silly to say that Catholics have no right to defend him.

Pope Honorius responded in an official capacity to a letter from Sergius in which the latter espoused monothelite beliefs; with Pope Honorius responding "These things your fraternity will preach with us as we ourselves preach them like minded with you."

Pope Honorius sent a legate to a council in Cyprus to defend monothelitism. Of course we know from Catholic sources that a papal legate, regardless of rank, is supposedly higher than any bishop. Does it make any sense at all that a papal legate would defend monothelitism if the pope himself didn't hold that position?

He was anathematized by an Ecumenical Council for being a heretic and following the monothelites in all things; and that anathematization was confirmed by Pope Leo and subsequent popes for centuries. If the Council was wrong in anathematizing Honorius why did Pope Leo confirm it? At least according to Pastor Aeternus aren't Catholics required to give assent to Pope Leo's findings?

Quite frankly this case is so cut and dry it seems more than a little ridiculous for Catholics to try and defend Honorius.

Since there is no direct evidence that Honrius was a heretic, then it's silly to say that Catholics have no right to defend him.

An Ecumenical Council convened to condemn his heresy condemn him by name and athamatize him. The evidence is from above, and irreformable.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

...the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

I dont understand this. Why would his anathema depend on whether he spoke ex cathedra? The council made no mention of papal infalability or speaking ex cathedra. The council simply said he was a heretic and anathematized him. The EO and RC consider that council to be valid. To me, that means a few things.

1). The pope does not have universal and supreme authority.2). Union with him is not necessary for orthodoxy. Only orthodoxy is necessary for orthodoxy.3). Honorius was a heretic.

Or it could mean that the council was in error when it anathematized him. Or if Hornorius really was a heretic, then he wasn't the Pope, so one need not be in communion with him.

Or he was pope of Rome, a heretic, in communion with heretics and not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the Ecumenical Council was correct (being infallible and irreformable, it would be) in anathematizing him.

We have no reason to think he was not Pope of Rome: he was elected a few days after the death of his predecessor, confirmed by the emperor and the rest of the Patriarchs. The Ecumenical Council specifically defines "Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome." Even your Vatican apologists want to have Pope St. Agatho naming Honorius a predecessor. The official list in the Pontiffical Yearbook lists him. The CE article on him identifies him as pope of Rome, and has the magisterium's seal of approvala: "Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York."

That he was in communion with other hierarchs is shown by the exchange of letters between him and them. That he was not in communion with the Orthodox is shown by his relations with Patriarch St. Sophronius. The Ecumenical Council affirmed our communion with Pat.St. Sophronius, and anathematized Honorius and those with whom he communed.

I know the facts do not fit the Pastor Aeternus mold. Oh, well.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

This is the first issue:for a "Dogmatic Constitution" that goes on to vest the entirety of the Church in one bishop (protestations notwithstanding), it is interesting to compare this with the Definitions of the Ecumenical Councils, the authority they invoke, and whence they claim their authority derives.

But first, I'll compare PA with itself: although it frees the pope of any need of any council, it nonetheless invokes "the approval of the Sacred Council" for its dogma.

Behind this is a long and convoluted history of the papacy trying to assert itself as the source of the authority of the synods, their convocation, their acts, their approval and promulgation. The Seven Ecumenical Councils recognize no such authority vested in the Pope of Rome. In the 14 councils that the Vatican now calls ecumenical (the list has changed. Indeed, some of the councils retroactively so elevated left few records of their promulgations), the pronouncements of the councils on their authority has varied, only after centuries settling on the authority of the pope of Rome getting top billing.

I'll cite the Ecumenical Councils on their authority below, and will put transitional council of Constantinople IV (869) there-transitional because it was voided by a Council once accepted as Ecumenical by Rome and so held today by many Orthodox (and accepted as Pan-Orthodox, authoritative but not infallible, by the rest), only after the schism of 1054 retroactively embraced as ecumenical by the Vatican, and held when Rome was still Orthodox.

The next council that the Vatican now promotes as ecumenical seems to be Lateran I, but that is not without problems, as even the Legion of Mary admits:

Quote

This council is often called "general" in the letters and decrees of Pope Callistus II. It is reasonable, however, to doubt its ecumenicity. Indeed the manner in which the council was called and conducted by the pope and the fathers differed from that of the older councils. Moreover several other councils, similar to Lateran I, were convened in the 11th and 12th centuries but were not termed ecumenical. The ecumenicity of this council seems, as far as we can tell, to have been confirmed later by the tradition of the Roman church.

It was the first of the councils that the Vatican now calls ecumenical in which the pope of Rome presided in person. As such, it issued its first canon:

Quote

1. Following the examples of the holy fathers and renewing them as we are bound by our office, by the authority of the apostolic see we altogether forbid anyone to be ordained or promoted in the church of God for money. If anyone indeed should have been ordained or promoted in the church in such a fashion, let him be utterly deprived of the office acquired

It seems, however, that the authority of the apostolic see and discharge of the office did not suffice: the Vatican at this point had to appeal to the voided council of Constantinople (869) and call it ecumenical, and retrieve its canons and acts (mostly lost: the remnants were pieced together from polemics against EP St. Photios)i in this Investiture Constroversy.

By this time, the Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum "Book of the Journal of the Pontiffs of the Romans" (the handbook of the Vatican chancellary) and its oath at the investiture of the pope anathematizing Honorius I by name, had fallen into disuse, not to be found until several centuries later and to the embarrassment of Robert Bellamine.

Of the next Lateran council (II), we know even less. In the words of the Legion of Mary:

Quote

In Lent of 1139 a general council was summoned by Pope Innocent II and held in the Lateran basilica {1}. As we know, the synod had been convoked the previous year; for the papal legates in England and Spain pressed the bishops and abbots to go to the council. Thus, a good number of fathers, at least five hundred, met in Rome. One of these came from the East, the patriarch of Antioch, but he was a Latin. With the pope presiding the council began on 2 April and it seems to have ended before 17 April, as far as we can judge from the sources.This council is called "general" in the records and more frequently "plenary" by Innocent himself. However, there is a doubt as to its ecumenicity for the same reasons that affect Lateran I.The Roman church, which for a long time had been divided in its obedience between Innocent II (1130-1143) and Anacletus II (1130-1138), seems to have overcome schism and factionalism, and indeed to have recovered its peace. This was due to the death of Anacletus in 1138 and the efforts of Bernard of Clairvaux, who had fought with the utmost zeal on behalf of Innocent for the restoration of unity. But Innocent, perhaps upset by the agreements which Anacletus had arrived at, vigorously cited and condemned Anacletus' part in the evil affair {2}, an action which seems to have provoked a complaint from Bernard.

http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM10.HTMThis council was called to smooth over the rivalries of the schism that came at the death of Pope Honorius II, and pope/antipope rivalry that insued (hence the references to Innoncent II and Anacletus II), continuing the Investiture Controversy, which continued to occasion the next Lateran council, III

At the Vatican's present nineth council it resurrected its present eighth council, and at it tenth it had the Crusader it had put in the East. At its eleventh it tried to stop the battles between the Emperors and rival claimants over that font of unity, the papacy at Rome. It issued only canons, the first which reads:

Quote

1. Although clear enough decrees have been handed down by our predecessors to avoid dissension in the choice of a sovereign pontiff, nevertheless in spite of these, because through wicked and reckless ambition the church has often suffered serious division, we too, in order to avoid this evil, on the advice of our brethren and with the approval of the sacred council, have decided that some addition must be made. Therefore we decree that if by chance, through some enemy sowing tares, there cannot be full agreement among the cardinals on a successor to the papacy, and though two thirds are in agreement a third party is unwilling to agree with them or presumes to appoint someone else for itself, that person shall be held as Roman pontiff who has been chosen and received by the two thirds. But if anyone trusting to his nomination by the third party assumes the name of bishop, since he cannot take the reality, both he and those who receive him are to incur excommunication and be deprived of all sacred order, so that viaticum be denied them, except at the hour of death, and unless they repent, let them receive the lot of Dathan and Abiron, who were swallowed up alive by the earth. Further, if anyone is chosen to the apostolic office by less than two thirds, unless in the meantime he receives a larger support, let him in no way assume it, and let him be subject to the foresaid penalty if he is unwilling humbly to refrain. However, as a result of this decree, let no prejudice arise to the canons and other ecclesiastical constitutions according to which the decision of the greater and senior {1} part should prevail, because any doubt that can arise in them can be settled by a higher authority; whereas in the Roman church there is a special constitution, since no recourse can be had to a superior.

Having finally resolved the Investiture Controversy, and, having sacked nearly all the sees in the East, appointed Crusader patriarchs for the East, the Vatican began to issue dogmatic statement, not in Definitions which continued the work of the Ecumenical Councils, but "Dogmatic Constitutions." The first summarizes the creed the Vatican had adopted with the filioque, with no reference to the Ecumenical Councls:

Quote

We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable, incomprehensible and ineffable, Father, Son and holy Spirit, three persons but one absolutely simple essence, substance or nature {1}. The Father is from none, the Son from the Father alone, and the holy Spirit from both equally, eternally without beginning or end; the Father generating, the Son being born, and the holy Spirit proceeding; consubstantial and coequal, co-omnipotent and coeternal; one principle of all things, creator of all things invisible and visible, spiritual and corporeal; who by his almighty power at the beginning of time created from nothing both spiritual and corporeal creatures, that is to say angelic and earthly, and then created human beings composed as it were of both spirit and body in common. The devil and other demons were created by God naturally good, but they became evil by their own doing. Man, however, sinned at the prompting of the devil.

The next council begins its dogmatic constitutions with the Papal Bull deposing the Emperor Frederick II

Quote

Innocent {1}, bishop, servant of the servants of God, in the presence of the holy council, for an everlasting record.

and then launches on into

Quote

ConstitutionsI1.On rescriptsSince in many articles of law failure to define their scope is blameworthy, after prudent consideration we decree that by the general clause "certain others" which frequently occurs in papal letters, no more than three or four persons are to be brought to court. The petitioner should state the names in his first citation, lest by chance a place is left for fraud if the names can be freely altered {18}.

The Vatican then, at Lyons II, tried to treat the Emperor of the Romans at Constantinople the way it had the Germanic Emperors, issuing a dogmatic constitution for more Crusade:

Quote

Zeal for the faith, fervent devotion and compassionate love ought to rouse the hearts of the faithful, so that all who glory in the name of Christian grieved to the heart by the insult to their redeemer, should rise vigorously and openly in defence of the holy Land and support for God's cause....

The papacy, however, suffered a set back when the knights stopped massacring in the East and stayed home to pillage in the West. Pope Clement V remained in France, the puppet of King Philip, and suppressed the Knights Templar, a hold over from the heyday of the Crusading popes. The "council of Vienne" consists of a series of papal bulls issued, beginning:

Quote

Clement, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record... For an everlasting record. It belongs to Christ's vicar, exercising his vigilant care from the apostolic watch-tower, to judge the changing conditions of the times, to examine the causes of the affairs which crop up and to observe the characters of the people concerned. In this way he can give due consideration to each affair and act opportunely; he can tear out the thistles of vice from the field of the Lord so that virtue may increase; and he can remove the thorns of false dealing so as to plant rather than to destroy. He transfers slips dedicated to God into the places left empty by the eradication of the harmful thistles. By thus transferring and uniting in a provident and profitable way, he brings a joy greater than the harm he has caused to the people uprooted; true justice has compassion for sorrow. By enduring the harm and replacing it profitably, he increases the growth of the virtues and rebuilds what has been destroyed with something better....Clement, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for assurance in the present and for future record...To all the administrators and guardians of the property of the former house and order of the Knights Templar, delegated by apostolic and any other authority. Recently we held, as the Lord so disposed, a general council at Vienne...We therefore strictly command all of you, by apostolic ordinance,...For a future record...For everlasting record...For an everlasting record. Some time ago, in the general council held at Vienne under the Lord's inspiration...Adhering firmly to the foundation of the catholic faith, other than which, as the Apostle testifies, no one can lay, we openly profess with holy mother church that the only begotten Son of God, subsisting eternally together with the Father in everything in which God the Father exists, assumed in time in the womb of a virgin the parts of our nature united together, from which he himself true God became true man: namely the human, passible body and the intellectual or rational soul truly of itself and essentially informing the body....We, therefore, directing our apostolic attention, to which alone it belongs to define these things, to such splendid testimony and to the common opinion of the holy fathers and doctors, declare with the approval of the sacred council that....

http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM15.HTM#09here Clement alludes to some council, but his bulls were being issued from his own chancellory back in his native France, not Rome. He also used the opportunity to undo the Bull Unam Sanctam (which, given that I see no reason why it is not "infallible" ex cathedra, we'll probably deal with) as it applied to King Phillip. This lead eventually to the Great Western Schismwhich necessitated another council over the font of unity, the papacy of Rome, which now had three claimants, resolved only at Constance. The bishops there voted in national blocks, not as individuals.

Quote

John, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for future record. Wishing to carry out those things which were decreed at the council of Pisa [13] by our predecessor of happy memory, pope [14] Alexander V, regarding the summoning of a new general council, we earlier convoked this present council by letters of ours, the contents of which we have ordered to be inserted here:John, bishop ... [15]We have therefore come together with our venerable brothers, cardinals of the holy Roman church, and our court to this city of Constance at the appointed time. Being present here by the grace of God, we now wish, with the advice of this sacred synod, to attend to the peace, exaltation and reform of the church and to the quiet of the Christian people...(John XXIII publicly offers to resign the papacy)(Decrees on the integrity and authority of the council, after the pope s flight [18])

For the honour, praise and glory of the most holy Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit, and to obtain on earth, for people of good will, the peace that was divinely promised in God's church, this holy synod, called the sacred general council of Constance, duly assembled here in the holy Spirit for the purpose of bringing union and reform to the said church in its head and members, discerns declares, defines and ordains as follows.First, that this synod was and is rightly and properly summoned to this city of Constance, and likewise has been rightly and properly begun and held.Next, that this sacred council has not been dissolved by the departure of our lord pope from Constance, or even by the departure of other prelates or any other persons, but continues in its integrity and authority, even if decrees to the contrary have been made or shall be made in the future.Next, that this sacred council should not and may not be dissolved until the present schism has been entirely removed and until the church has been reformed in faith and morals, in head and members.Next, that this sacred council may not be transferred to another place, except for a reasonable cause, which is to be debated and decided on by this sacred council.Next, that prelates and other persons who should be present at this council may not depart from this place before it has ended, except for a reasonable cause which is to be examined by persons who have been, or will be, deputed by this sacred council. When the reason has been examined and approved, they may depart with the permission of the person or persons in authority. When the individual departs, he is bound to give his power to others who stay, under penalty of the law, as well as to others appointed by this sacred council, and those who act to the contrary are to be prosecuted.In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit Amen. This holy synod of Constance, which is a general council, for the eradication of the present schism and for bringing unity and reform to God's church in head and members, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit to the praise of almighty God, ordains, defines, decrees, discerns and declares as follows, in order that this union and reform of God's church may be obtained the more easily, securely, fruitfully and freely.First, that this synod, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, constituting a general council, representing the catholic church militant, has power immediately from Christ, and that everyone of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey it in those matters which pertain to the faith and the eradication of the said schism. [19]Next, that our most holy lord pope John XXIII may not move or transfer the Roman curia and its public offices, or its or their officials, from this city to another place, nor directly or indirectly compel the persons of the said offices to follow him, without the deliberation and consent of the same holy synod; this refers to those officials or offices by whose absence the council would probably be dissolved or harmed. If he has acted to the contrary in the past, or shall in the future, or if he has in the past, is now or shall in the future fulminate any processes or mandates or ecclesiastical censures or any other penalties against the said officials or any other adherents of this council, to the effect that they should follow him then all is null and void and in no way are the said processes, censures and penalties to be obeyed, inasmuch as they are null and void, and they are invalid. The said officials are rather to exercise their offices in the said city of Constance, and to carry them out freely as before, as long as this holy synod is being held in the said city....In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit. Amen. This holy synod of Constance, which is a general council, for the eradication of the present schism and for bringing unity and reform to God's church in head and members, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit to the praise of almighty God, ordains, defines, decrees, discerns and declares as follows, in order that this union and reform of God's church may be obtained the more easily, securely, fruitfully and freely.First it declares that, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, constituting a general council and representing the catholic church militant, it has power immediately from Christ; and that everyone of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey it in those matters which pertain to the faith, the eradication of the said schism and the general reform of the said church of God in head and members.Next, it declares that anyone of whatever condition, state or dignity, even papal, who contumaciously refuses to obey the past or future mandates, statutes, ordinances or precepts of this sacred council or of any other legitimately assembled general council, regarding the aforesaid things or matters pertaining to them, shall be subjected to well-deserved penance, unless he repents, and shall be duly punished, even by having recourse, if necessary, to other supports of the law.Next, the said holy synod defines and ordains that the lord pope John XXIII may not move or transfer the Roman curia and its public offices, or its or their officials, from the city of Constance to another place, nor directly or indirectly compel the said officials to follow him, without the deliberation and consent of the same holy synod. If he has acted to the contrary in the past, or shall in the future, or if he has in the past, is now or shall in the future fulminate any processes or mandates or ecclesiastical censures or any other penalties, against the said officials or any other adherents of this sacred council, to the effect that they should follow him, then all is null and void and in no way are the said processes, censures and penalties to be obeyed, inasmuch as they are null and void. The said officials are rather to exercise their offices in the said city of Constance, and to carry them out freely as before, as long as this holy synod h being held in the said City....This most holy synod of Constance, which is a general council and represents the catholic church and is legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, for the eradication of the present schism and the elimination of the errors and heresies which are sprouting beneath its shade and for the reform of the church, make this perpetual record of its acts....This most holy general synod of Constance, representing the catholic church, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, for the eradication of the present schism and errors, for bringing about the reform of the church in head and members, and in order that the unity of the church may be obtained more easily, quickly and freely, pronounces, determines, decrees and ordains that if it happens that the apostolic see becomes vacant, by whatever means this may happen, then the process of electing the next supreme pontiff may not begin without the deliberation and consent of this sacred general council. If the contrary is done then it is by this very fact, by the authority of the said sacred council, null and void. Nobody may accept anyone elected to the papacy in defiance of this decree, nor in any way adhere to or obey him as pope, under pain of eternal damnation and of becoming a supporter of the said schism. Those who make the election in such a case, as well as the person elected, if he consents, and those who adhere to him, are to be punished in the forms prescribed by this sacred council. The said holy synod, moreover, for the good of the church's unity, suspends all positive laws, even those promulgated in general councils, and their statutes, ordinances, customs and privileges, by whomsoever they may have been granted, and penalties promulgated against any persons, insofar as these may in any way impede the effect of this decree.In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit Amen. This most holy general synod of Constance, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, having invoked Christ's name and holding God alone before its eyes, having seen the articles drawn up and presented in this case against the lord pope John XXIII, the proofs brought forward, his spontaneous submission and the whole process of the case, and having deliberated maturely on them, pronounces, decrees and declares by this definitive sentence which it commits to writing: that the departure of the aforesaid lord pope John XXIII from this city of Constance and from this sacred general council, secretly and at a suspicious hour of the night, in disguised and indecent dress, was and is unlawful, notoriously scandalous to God's church and to this council, disturbing and damaging for the church's peace and unity, supportive of this long-standing schism, and at variance with the vow, promise and oath made by the said lord pope John to God, to the church and to this sacred council; that the said lord pope John has been and is a notorious simoniac, a notorious destroyer of the goods and rights not only of the Roman church but also of other churches and of many pious places, and an evil administrator and dispenser of the church's spiritualities and temporalities; that he has notoriously scandalised God's church and the Christian people by his detestable and dishonest life and morals, both before his promotion to the papacy and afterwards until the present time, that by the above he has scandalised and is scandalising in a notorious fashion God's church and the Christian people; that after due and charitable warnings, frequently reiterated to him, he obstinately persevered in the aforesaid evils and thereby rendered himself notoriously incorrigible; and that on account of the above and other crimes drawn from and contained in the said process against him, he should be deprived of and deposed from, as an unworthy, useless and damnable person, the papacy and all its spiritual and temporal administration. The said holy synod does now remove, deprive and depose him. It declares each and every Christian, of whatever state, dignity or condition, to be absolved from obedience, fidelity and oaths to him. It forbids all Christians henceforth to recognise him as pope, now that as mentioned he has been deposed from the papacy, or to call him pope, or to adhere to or in any way to obey him as pope. The said holy synod, moreover, from certain knowledge and its fullness of power, supplies for all and singular defects that may have occurred in the above-mentioned procedures or in any one of them. It condemns the said person, by this same sentence, to stay and remain in a good and suitable place, in the name of this sacred general council, in the safe custody of the most serene prince lord Sigismund, king of the Romans and of Hungary, etc., and most devoted advocate and defender of the universal church, as long as it seems to the said general council to be for the good of the unity of God's church that he should be so condemned. The said council reserves the right to declare and inflict other punishments that should be imposed for the said crimes and faults in accordance with canonical sanctions, according as the rigour of justice or the counsel of mercy may advise.The said holy synod decrees, determines and ordains for the good of unity in God's church that neither the lord Baldassare de Cossa, recently John XXIII, nor Angelo Correr nor Peter de Luna, called Gregory XII and Benedict XIII by their respective obediences, shall ever be re-elected as pope. If the contrary happens, it is by this very fact null and void. Nobody, of whatever dignity or pre-eminence even if he be emperor, king, cardinal or pontiff, may ever adhere to or obey them or any one of them, contrary to this decree, under pain of eternal damnation and of being a supporter of the said schism. Let those who presume to the contrary, if there are any in the future, also be firmly proceeded against in other ways, even by invoking the secular arm.In order that the reunion of the church may be possible and that a beginning may be made which is fitting and pleasing to God, since the most important part of any matter is its beginning, and in order that the two obediences—namely the one claiming that the lord John XXIII was formerly pope and the other claiming that the lord Gregory XII is pope—may be united together under Christ as head, this most holy general synod of Constance, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit and representing the catholic church, accepts in all matters the convoking, authorising, approving and confirming that is now being made in the name of the lord who is called Gregory XII by those obedient to him, insofar as it seems to pertain to him to do this, since the certainty obtained by taking a precaution harms nobody and benefits all, and it decrees and declares that the aforesaid two obediences are joined and united in the one body of our lord Jesus Christ and of this sacred universal general council, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit.The most holy general synod of Constance, etc., enacts, pronounces, ordains and decrees, in order that God's holy church may be provided for better, more genuinely and more securely, that the next election of the future Roman pontiff is to be made in the manner, form, place, time and way that shall be decided upon by the sacred council; that the same council can and may henceforth declare fit, accept and designate, in the manner and form that then seems suitable, any persons for the purposes of this election, whether by active or by passive voice, of whatever state or obedience they are or may have been, and any other ecclesiastical acts and all other suitable things, notwithstanding any proceedings, penalties or sentences; and that the sacred council shall not be dissolved until the said election has been held. The said holy synod therefore exhorts and requires the most victorious prince lord Sigismund, king of the Romans and of Hungary, as the church's devoted advocate and as the sacred council's defender and protector, to direct all his efforts to this end and to promise on his royal word that he wishes to do this and to order letters of his majesty to be made out for this purpose.The most holy general synod of Constance, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, representing the universal catholic church, accepts, approves and commends, in the name of the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit, the cession renunciation and resignation made on behalf of the lord who was called Gregory XII in his obedience, by the magnificent and powerful lord Charles Malatesta. here present, his irrevocable procurator for this business, of the right, title and possession that he had, or may have had, in regard to the papacy. May this judgment come forth from the face of him who sits on the throne, and from his mouth proceeds a double-edged sword, whose scales are just and weights are true, who will come to judge the living and the dead, our lord Jesus Christ, Amen. The Lord is just and loves just deeds, his face looks on righteousness. But the Lord looks on those who do evil so as to cut off their remembrance from the earth. Let there perish, says the holy prophet, the memory of him who did not remember to show mercy and who persecuted the poor and needy. How much more should there perish the memory of Peter de Luna, called by some Benedict XIII, who persecuted and disturbed all people and the universal church? For, how greatly he has sinned against God's church and the entire Christian people, fostering, nourishing and continuing the schism and division of God's church How ardent and frequent have been the devout and humble prayers, exhortations and requests of kings, princes and prelates with which he has been warned in charity, in accordance with the teaching of the gospel, to bring peace to the church, to heal its wounds and to reconstitute its divided parts into one structure and one body, as he had sworn to do, and as for a long time it was within his power to do ! He was unwilling, however, to listen to their charitable admonitions. How many were the persons afterwards sent to attest to him! Because he did not listen at all even to these, it has been necessary, in accordance with the aforesaid evangelical teaching of Christ, to say to the church, since he has not listened even to her, that he should be treated as a heathen and a publican. All these things have been clearly proved by the articles coming from the inquiry into faith and the schism held before this present synod, regarding the above and other matters brought against him, as well as by their truth and notoriety. The proceedings have been correct and canonical, all the acts have been correctly and carefully examined and there has been mature deliberation. Therefore this same holy general synod, representing the universal church and sitting as a tribunal in the aforesaid inquiry, pronounces, decrees and declares by this definitive sentence written here, that the same Peter de Luna, called Benedict XIII as has been said, has been and is a perjurer, a cause of scandal to the universal church, a promoter and breeder of the ancient schism, that long established fission and division in God's holy church, an obstructer of the peace and unity of the said church, a schismatic disturber and a heretic, a deviator from the faith, a persistent violator of the article of the faith One holy catholic church, incorrigible, notorious and manifest in his scandal to God's church, and that he has rendered himself unworthy of every title, rank, honour and dignity, rejected and cut off by God, deprived by the law itself of every right in any way belonging to him in the papacy or pertaining to the Roman pontiff and the Roman church, and cut off from the catholic church like a withered member. This same holy synod, moreover, as a precautionary measure, since according to himself he actually holds the papacy, deprives, deposes and casts out the said Peter from the papacy and from being the supreme pontiff of the Roman church and from every title, rank, honour, dignity, benefice and office whatsoever. It forbids him to act henceforth as the pope or as the supreme and Roman pontiff. It absolves and declares to be absolved all Christ's faithful from obedience to him, and from every duty of obedience to him and from oaths and obligations in any way made to him. It forbids each and every one of Christ's faithful to obey, respond to or attend to, as if he were pope, the said Peter de Luna, who is a notorious, declared and deposed schismatic and incorrigible heretic, or to sustain or harbour him in any way contrary to the aforesaid, or to offer him help, advice or good will. This is forbidden under pain of the offender being counted as a promoter of schism and heresy and of being deprived of all benefices, dignities and ecclesiastical or secular honours, and under other penalties of the law, even if the dignity is that of a bishop, a patriarch, a cardinal, a king or the emperor. If they act contrary to this prohibition, they are by this very fact deprived of these things, on the authority of this decree and sentence, and they incur the other penalties of the law. This holy synod, moreover, declares and decrees that all and singular prohibitions and all processes, sentences, constitutions, censures and any other things whatsoever that were issued by him and might impede the aforesaid, are without effect; and it invalidates, revokes and annuls them; saving always the other penalties which the law decrees for the above cases.The frequent holding of general councils is a pre-eminent means of cultivating the Lord's patrimony. It roots out the briars, thorns and thistles of heresies, errors and schisms, corrects deviations, reforms what is deformed and produces a richly fertile crop for the Lord's vineyard. Neglect of councils, on the other hand, spreads and fosters the aforesaid evils. This conclusion is brought before our eyes by the memory of past times and reflection on the present situation. For this reason we establish, enact, decree and ordain, by a perpetual edict, that general councils shall be held henceforth in the following way. The first shall follow in five years immediately after the end of this council, the second in seven years immediately after the end of the next council, and thereafter they are to be held every ten years for ever. They are to be held in places which the supreme pontiff is bound to nominate and assign within a month before the end of each preceding council, with the approval and consent of the council, or which, in his default, the council itself is bound to nominate. Thus, by a certain continuity, there will always be either a council in existence or one expected within a given time. If perchance emergencies arise, the time may be shortened by the supreme pontiff, acting on the advice of his brothers, the cardinals of the Roman church, but it may never be prolonged. Moreover, he may not change the place assigned for the next council without evident necessity. If an emergency arises whereby it seems necessary to change the place—for example in the case of a siege, war, disease or the like—then the supreme pontiff may, with the consent and written endorsement of his aforesaid brothers or of two-thirds of them, substitute another place which is suitable and fairly near to the place previously assigned. It must, however, be within the same nation unless the same or a similar impediment exists throughout the nation. In the latter case he may summon the council to another suitable place which is nearby but within another nation, and the prelates and other persons who are customarily summoned to a council will be obliged to come to it as if it had been the place originally assigned. The supreme pontiff is bound to announce and publish the change of place or the shortening of time in a legal and solemn form within a year before the date assigned, so that the aforesaid persons may be able to meet and hold the council at the appointed time.The most holy synod of Constance [40] declares and decrees that the future supreme Roman pontiff, who by God's grace is to be elected very soon, together with this sacred council or those to be deputed by the individual nations, is bound to reform the church in its head and in the Roman curia, according to justice and the good government of the church, before this council is dissolved, under the topics contained in the following articles, which were at various times put forward by the nations by way of reforms.For the praise, glory and honour of almighty God and for the peace and unity of the universal church and of the whole Christian people. The election of the future Roman and supreme pontiff is soon to be held. We wish that it may be confirmed with greater authority and by the assent of many persons and that, mindful as we are of the state of the church, no doubts or scruples may later remain in people's minds regarding the said election but rather that a secure, true full and perfect union of the faithful may result from it. Therefore this most holy general synod of Constance, mindful of the common good and with the special and express consent and the united wish of the cardinals of the holy Roman church present at the same synod, and of the college of cardinals and of all the nations at this present council, declares, ordains and decrees that, for this time only, at the election of the Roman and supreme pontiff, there shall be added to the cardinals six prelates or other honourable churchmen in holy orders, from each of the nations currently present and named at the same synod, who are to be chosen by each of the said nations within ten days. This same holy synod gives power to all these people, insofar as it is necessary, to elect the Roman pontiff according to the form here laid down. That is to say, the person is to be regarded as the Roman pontiff by the universal church without exception who is elected and admitted by two-thirds of the cardinals present at the conclave and by two-thirds of those from each nation who are to be and have been added to the cardinals. Moreover, the election is not valid nor is the person elected to be regarded as supreme pontiff unless two-thirds of the cardinals present at the conclave, and two-thirds of those from each nation who should be and have been added to the same cardinals, agree to elect him as Roman pontiff. The synod also declares, ordains and decrees that the votes of any persons cast at the election are null unless, as has been said, two-thirds of the cardinals, and two-thirds of those from each nation who should be and have been added to them, agree, directly or by way of addition, upon one person. This must be added, moreover, that the prelates and other persons who should be and have been added to the cardinals for the election, are bound to observe all and singular apostolic constitutions, even penal ones, which have been promulgated regarding the election of the Roman pontiff, just as the cardinals themselves are bound to observe them, and they are bound to their observance. The said electors, both cardinals and others, are also bound to swear, before they proceed to the election, that in attending to the business of the election, they will proceed with pure and sincere minds—since it is a question of creating the vicar Jesus Christ, the successor of the blessed Peter, the governor of the universal church and the leader of the Lord's flock—and that they firmly believe it will benefit the public good of the universal church if they entirely prescind from all affection for persons of any particular nation, or other inordinate affections, as well as from hatred and graces or favours bestowed, in order that by their ministry a beneficial and suitable pastor may be provided for the universal church. This same holy synod, mindful of this notorious vacancy in the Roman church, fixes and assigns the next ten days for all and singular cardinals of the holy Roman church, whether present here or absent, and the other electors mentioned above, to enter into the conclave which is to be held in this city of Constance, in the commune's principal building which has already been allocated for this purpose. The synod ordains, declares and decrees that within these next ten days the aforesaid electors, both cardinals and others mentioned above, must enter into the conclave for the purpose of holding the election and of doing and carrying out all the other matters according as the laws ordain and decree in all things, besides those mentioned above regarding the cardinals and other electors, concerning the election of a Roman pontiff. The same holy synod wishes all these laws to remain in force after the above matters have been observed. For this time, however, it approves, ordains, establishes and decrees this particular form and manner of election. The same holy synod, in order to remove all scruples, makes and declares fit for actively and passively carrying out all legitimate acts at the same synod, insofar as this is necessary, all those who are present at the same synod as well as those who will come and adhere to it, always saving the other decrees of this same sacred council, and it will supply for any defects, if perchance any shall occur in the above, notwithstanding any apostolic constitutions, even those published in general councils, and other constitutions to the contrary.

I quote at length because the opponents at Vatican I to Pastor Aeternus looked to Constance for their inspiration (and hence further quotes from it on the papacy will be in order, especially as the Vatican still considers it ecumenical). What is clear is that the council sees itself as an authority not dependent on another (i.e. the papacy) for its authority. It fact, it dictates to the pope of Rome. When it finally settled on one, Martin V, and he agreed to the councils terms, he issued

Quote

Martin, bishop and servant of the servants of God. We note that from the time of the death of pope Gregory XI, our predecessor of happy memory, some Roman pontiffs, or those who claimed to be and were reputed as such in their various obediences..Martin, etc. We wish and desire to put into effect a decree of this general council [45] which lays down, among other things, that general councils must always be held in the place which the supreme pontiff, with the consent and approval of the council, is bound to depute and assign, within the month before the end of this council, as the place for the next council after the end of the present one. With the consent and approval of this present council, we therefore, by this present decree, depute and assign the city of Pavia for this purpose, and we ordain and decree that prelates and others who ought to be summoned to general councils are obliged to go to Pavia at the aforesaid time. Let nobody therefore ... If anyone however .... Given and enacted at Constance, in the place of this public session ....Martin, etc. We dissolve the council, as the sacred council itself requires, for reasons that are certain, reasonable and just. We give permission, with the council's approval, to each and every person at the council to return home. Furthermore, on the authority of almighty God and of his blessed apostles Peter and Paul and on our authority, we grant to each and every person who has taken part in this sacred council and its business a full absolution of all his sins, once in his life, provided he takes advantage of the absolution in the correct form within two months of his hearing about it. We grant the same at the hour of death. This is to be understood as applying to both lords and members of their households; provided that they fast on each Friday for a year from the day they come to know of this indulgence, in the case of those who seek the absolution for while they are alive, and for another year in the case of those who seek it for the hour of death, unless they are legitimately prevented from doing so, in which case they should perform other pious works. After the second year, they ought to fast on Fridays until the end of their lives or to perform other pious works. Let nobody therefore .... If anyone however ....Given and enacted at Constance in the place of this public session ...

http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM16.HTM#4Martin did convene the council of Parva-Siena, according to the decrees of constance, but then through his own constitutions and concordants with the secular powers brought Constance's decrees to nought. Siena is not even any longer considered ecumenical by the Vatican, but it led to Basel-Florence, which opened

Quote

We, Nicholas, legate of the apostolic see, announce that we preside on behalf of our most holy lord pope Eugenius IV in this sacred synod which was translated from Basel to the city of Ferrara and is already legitimately assembled, and that the continuation of this translated synod has been effected today 8 January, and that the synod is and ought to be continued from today onwards for all the purposes for which the synod of Basel was convened, including being the ecumenical council at which the union of the western and the eastern church is treated and with God's help achieved.For the praise of almighty God, the exaltation of the catholic faith and the peace, tranquillity and unity of the whole Christian people. This holy universal synod, through the grace of God authorized by the most blessed lord pope Eugenius IV, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit in this city of Ferrara, represents the universal church. Its president, on behalf and in the name of the said most holy lord Eugenius, is the most reverend father and lord in Christ lord Nicholas, cardinal-priest of the holy Roman church of the title of holy Cross in Jerusalem, legate of the apostolic see. It adheres to the firm foundation of him who said to the prince of the apostles: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church. It is eager to preserve the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, so that we might be one body and one spirit, just as we were called in the one hope of our calling. It records that much was done in days past both at the former council of Basel and after its translation by some staying on there without any authority, and also by the said most blessed pope lord Eugenius, especially in respect of the business of the most holy union of the western and the eastern church, namely the following: the decree of the nineteenth session of the former council of Basel beginning As a dutiful mother, to which the most holy lord Eugenius gave his assent by his letter; also an agreed proposal on the choice of a place to which the council of Basel should be translated which was agreed upon and confirmed by all the fathers in common and which led to the decree of the twenty-fifth session of the former council, which begins This holy synod from its outset etc. and which the pope himself, urged on by the envoys of the Greeks, accepted and confirmed by his letter given in a general consistory at Bologna and published in the presence of these envoys, also the letter of the same most blessed Eugenius dated 18 September last, issued in a general consistory at Bologna and solemnly read out at the beginning of the continuation of this synod, by which the pope with the counsel and consent of the most reverend cardinals of the holy Roman church and with the approval of the prelates then in the curia, transferred the council to this city of Ferrara; also the letter of the declaration of the same, dated 30 December, immediately following the said translation; all of which this holy synod has ordered to be registered verbatim in its acts as a permanent record, as is contained in these same acts...This holy synod further declares that, since the well known necessity of the above reasons demanded and impelled the said most holy lord Eugenius to that translation, the matter in no way falls within the decrees of the eighth, the eleventh or any other session of the former council of Basel.It decrees that the assembly at Basel, and every other assembly which may perchance convene there or elsewhere under the name of a general council, rather is and ought to be considered a spurious gathering and conventicle, and can in no way exist with the authority of a general council.It quashes, invalidates and annuls, and declares to be invalid, quashed, null and of no force or moment, each and all of the things done in the city of Basel in the name of a general council after the said translation, and whatever may be attempted there or elsewhere in the future in the name of a general council.Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. The duties of the pastoral office over which we preside by divine mercy, despite our lack of merit, demand that we repress by opportune remedies the nefarious excesses of evil-minded persons, especially those who, unless prevented, strive to force the peaceful state of the church into various dangerous storms and disturbances and who endeavour to overturn the barque of Peter, and that we inflict due retribution for their excesses, lest boasting of their malice they give occasion to others to commit mischief. For it is a crime to be slack in punishing crimes that harm many people, as canonical regulations state.Thus, the former council of Basel debated the choice of a place for the future ecumenical council. Those on whom the power of choosing the place devolved, passed a decree which was accepted by the ambassadors of our most dear son in Christ John, emperor of the Greeks, and of our venerable brother Joseph, patriarch of Constantinople. Some persons chose Avignon or another place, but the said ambassadors protested that most assuredly they did not want to go there, declaring as certain that the said emperor and patriarch would by no means go to the said sacred council unless we attended in person. Those who asked for Avignon, afraid that the Greeks certainly would not come to them, dared to concoct a certain decree or notorious pamphlet, which they call a monition, against us, even though it is null and indeed leads to serious scandal and a split in the church, disrupting this holy work of union with the Greeks.In order to preserve the unity of the church and to promote the said union with the Greeks, we, for just, necessary and pressing reasons, with the advice and assent of our venerable brothers the cardinals of the holy Roman church, and with the advice and approval of very many of our venerable brothers the archbishops, bishops, beloved chosen sons and abbots who were present at the apostolic see, translated the said council of Basel, by our apostolic authority and in a fixed manner and form, to the city of Ferrara, which is suitable for the Greeks and for us, so that those at Basel might duly recoil from their scandalous actions, as is contained at greater length in the letter composed for the occasion' Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. It befits us to render thanks to almighty God who, mindful of his past mercies, always bestows on his church even richer growth and, although he allows her to be tossed on occasions by the waves of trials and tribulations, yet never permits her to be submerged but keeps her safe amid the mountainous waters, so that by his mercy she emerges from the various vicissitudes even stronger than before. For behold, the western and eastern peoples, who have been separated for long, hasten to enter into a pact of harmony and unity; and those who were justly distressed at the long dissension that kept them apart, at last after many centuries, under the impulse of him from whom every good gift comes, meet together in person in this place out of desire for holy union.Therefore we decree and declare, in every way and form as best we can, with the assent of the said emperor and patriarch and of all those in the present synod, that there exists a holy universal or ecumenical synod in this city of Ferrara, which is free and safe for all; and therefore it should be deemed and called such a synod by all, in which this holy business of union will be conducted without any quarrelsome contention but with all charity and, as we hope, will be brought by divine favour to a happy conclusion together with the other holy tasks for which the synod is known to have been instituted.Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. With the agreement of our most dear son John Palaeologus, illustrious emperor of the Romans, of the deputies of our venerable brothers the patriarchs and of other representatives of the eastern church, to the following

The unions came to nought, and a few decades later the King of France was holding a council at Pisa with a few cardinals, and the pope at Rome Julian I had to convene a counter-council, whose decrees consist of a series of papal bulls

Quote

Julius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record. We intend, with the help of the most High, to proceed with the holding of this sacred Lateran council which has now begun for the praise of God, the peace of the whole church, the union of the faithful the overthrow of heresies and schisms, the reform of morals, and the campaign against the dangerous enemies of the faith, so that the mouths of all schismatics and enemies of peace, those howling dogs, may be silenced and Christians may be able to keep themselves unstained from such pernicious and poisonous contagion.Julius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record. To the praise and glory of him whose works are perfect, we are continuing the sacred council of the Lateran, lawfully assembled by favour of the holy Spirit, in this third session....We condemn, reject and detest, with the approval of this same sacred council, each and every thing done by those sons of damnation, Bernard Carvajal, Guillaume Briconnet, Rene de Prie, and Frederick of San Severino, formerly cardinals, and their supporters, adherents, accomplices and disciples—who are schismatics and heretics and have worked madly to their own and others' ruin, aiming to split asunder the unity of holy mother church at the quasi-council held at Pisa, Milan, Lyons and elsewhere—whatever the things were in number and kind that have been enacted, carried out, done, written, published or ordained up to the present day, including the imposition of taxes carried out by them throughout the kingdom of France, or shall be done in the future. Even though they are indeed null, useless and void and have already been condemned and rejected by us with the approval of the aforesaid sacred council, we nevertheless retain this present condemnation and rejection for the sake of greater precaution....

although the constitution against simony in the election of the pope is on the authority of "Julius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record." When he died, his successor Pope Leo picked up

Quote

Leo, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record. By the supreme ordinance of the omnipotent who governs the things of heaven and of earth by his providence, we preside over his holy and universal church, though we are unworthy.Indeed, after the holding of five sessions of the sacred general Lateran council, pope Julius II of happy memory, our predecessor, by the advice and agreement of our venerable brothers the cardinals of the holy Roman church, of whose number we then were, in a praiseworthy and lawful manner and for sound reasons, guided by the holy Spirit, summoned the sixth session of the council to take place on the eleventh day of this month. But after he had been taken from our midst, we postponed the sixth session until today, with the advice and consent of our said brothers, for reasons which were then expressed and for other reasons influencing the attitude of us and of our said brothers. But since there had always been an inner determination within us, while we were of lesser rank, to see the general council being celebrated (as a principal means of cultivating the Lord's field), now that we have been raised to the highest point of the apostolate, considering that a duty which results from the office of pastoral care enjoined on us has coincided with our honourable and beneficial wish, we have undertaken this matter with a more earnest desire and complete readiness of mind. Consequently, with the approval of the same sacred Lateran council we approve the postponement which we made and the council itself, until the aims for which it was summoned have been completed, in particular that a general and settled peace may be arranged between Christian princes and rulers after the violence of wars has been stilled and armed conflict set aside..Leo, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record. The burden of apostolic government ever drives us on so that, for the weaknesses of souls requiring to be healed, of which the almighty Creator from on high has willed us to have the care, and for those ills in particular which are now seen to be pressing most urgently on the faithful, we may exercise...Leo, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record. We are continuing the sacred Lateran council for the praise of the almighty and undivided Trinity and for the glory of him whose place we represent on earth, who develops peace and harmony in his high heavens, and who, on his departure from this world, left peace as a lawful inheritance to his disciples....Leo, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record. Placed by the gift of divine grace at the supreme point of the apostolic hierarchy, we thought nothing was more in keeping with our official duty than to survey, with zeal and care, everything which could pertain to the protection, soundness and extension of the catholic flock entrusted to us. To this purpose we have applied all the force of our activity and the strength of our mind and talent. Our predecessor of happy memory, pope Julius II, since he was concerned about the well-being of the faithful and anxious to protect it, had summoned the ecumenical Lateran council for many other reasons indeed,...Leo, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record. After we had been called by divine dispensation to the care and rule of the universal church, even though we are unworthy of so great a responsibility, we began from the highest point of the apostolate, as from the top of Mount Sion, to turn our immediate gaze and direct our mind to the things that seem to be of primary importance for the salvation, peace and extension of the church itself...Leo, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record. It is eminently fitting for the Roman pontiff to carry out the duty of a provident shepherd, in order to care for and keep safe the Lord's flock entrusted to him by God, since, by the will of the supreme ordinance by which the things of heaven and of earth are arranged by ineffable providence, he acts on the lofty throne of St Peter as vicar on earth of Christ, the only-begotten Son of God. When we notice, out of solicitude for our said pastoral office, that church discipline and the pattern of a sound and upright life are worsening, disappearing and going further astray from the right path throughout almost all the ranks of Christ's faithful, with a disregard for law and with exemption from punishment,...Leo, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record. We ought to give first place in our pastoral office, among our many anxious cares, to ensuring that what is healthy, praiseworthy, in keeping with the Christian faith, and in harmony with good customs may be not only clarified in our time but also made known to future generations,...Leo, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record. Presiding over the government of the universal church (the Lord so disposing), we readily aim to secure the advantages of subjects, in conformity with the obligation of our pastoral office. Leo, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the council, for an everlasting record. We have been set over nations and kingdoms, as the prophet declared, although our merits are unequal to this. We are suitably carrying out the duty of our office when we renew again that reform of the whole church and its affairs which we have accomplished with profit; when we plan to apply suitable remedies for the unchallenged observance of the reform...

It is to be noted that the bulls all are on the pope authority, constanting refering to the presumed powers and responsibilities of his office. Yet he mentions the approval of the council, as done in Pastor Aeternus.

Quote

Under Pope Paul III, Bishop, servant of the servants of God, for a perpetual remembrance hereofSince there is being disseminated at this time, not without the loss of many souls and grievous detriment to the unity of the Church, a certain erroneous doctrine concerning justification, the holy, ecumenical and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the most reverend John Maria, Bishop of Praeneste de Monte, and Marcellus, priest of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, cardinals of the holy Roman Church and legates Apostolic a latere, presiding in the name of our most holy Father and Lord in Christ, Paul III, by the providence of God, Pope, intends, for the praise and glory of Almighty God, for the tranquillity of the Church and the salvation of souls, to expound to all the faithful of Christ the true and salutary doctrine of justification, which the Sun of justice,[1] Jesus Christ, the author and finisher of our faith[2] taught, which the Apostles transmitted and which the Catholic Church under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost has always retained; strictly forbidding that anyone henceforth presume to believe, preach or teach otherwise than is defined and declared in the present decree.That our Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please God,[1] may, after the destruction of errors, remain integral and spotless in its purity, and that the Christian people may not be carried about with every wind of doctrine,[2] since that old serpent,[3] the everlasting enemy of the human race, has, among the many evil

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

...the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

I dont understand this. Why would his anathema depend on whether he spoke ex cathedra? The council made no mention of papal infalability or speaking ex cathedra. The council simply said he was a heretic and anathematized him. The EO and RC consider that council to be valid. To me, that means a few things.

1). The pope does not have universal and supreme authority.2). Union with him is not necessary for orthodoxy. Only orthodoxy is necessary for orthodoxy.3). Honorius was a heretic.

Or it could mean that the council was in error when it anathematized him. Or if Hornorius really was a heretic, then he wasn't the Pope, so one need not be in communion with him.

Or he was pope of Rome, a heretic, in communion with heretics and not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the Ecumenical Council was correct (being infallible and irreformable, it would be) in anathematizing him.

For those Catholics and Orthodox who prefer something closer to the historical and doctrinal truth of the matter, in contradistinction to bluster the chronicle at the above link is trustworthy in terms of the documents discussed.

It really is a fascinating story and is one of the clear examples in history that subsequently has resulted in the muting of the unctuous tendency to anathematize people rather than ideas.

The idea that Honorius was a formal heretic by intent does not stand up in the face of documentary evidence. It is clear that Honorius had no intention of splitting the Church in fact he was stretching to find a way to keep the Church from splitting and by doing so he plunged his own pen in the well of material heresy, by the failure to affirm the truth, while also trying to find common ground in the argument of the action of the human will of the Son of God. Had he done both, his record in history would have been much cleaner.

The contemporary idea, oft expressed by those who are critical of the Catholic Church, that the primacy and infallibility of the Pope means that he can never make mistakes of judgment, or errors of any kind, is absolutely false. Nothing in the story of Honorius mitigates against the teaching of primacy and infallibility.

...the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

I dont understand this. Why would his anathema depend on whether he spoke ex cathedra? The council made no mention of papal infalability or speaking ex cathedra. The council simply said he was a heretic and anathematized him. The EO and RC consider that council to be valid. To me, that means a few things.

1). The pope does not have universal and supreme authority.2). Union with him is not necessary for orthodoxy. Only orthodoxy is necessary for orthodoxy.3). Honorius was a heretic.

Or it could mean that the council was in error when it anathematized him. Or if Hornorius really was a heretic, then he wasn't the Pope, so one need not be in communion with him.

Or he was pope of Rome, a heretic, in communion with heretics and not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the Ecumenical Council was correct (being infallible and irreformable, it would be) in anathematizing him.

For those Catholics and Orthodox who prefer something closer to the historical and doctrinal truth of the matter, in contradistinction to bluster the chronicle at the above link is trustworthy in terms of the documents discussed.

It really is a fascinating story and is one of the clear examples in history that subsequently has resulted in the muting of the unctuous tendency to anathematize people rather than ideas.

The idea that Honorius was a formal heretic by intent does not stand up in the face of documentary evidence. It is clear that Honorius had no intention of splitting the Church in fact he was stretching to find a way to keep the Church from splitting and by doing so he plunged his own pen in the well of material heresy, by the failure to affirm the truth, while also trying to find common ground in the argument of the action of the human will of the Son of God. Had he done both, his record in history would have been much cleaner.

The contemporary idea, oft expressed by those who are critical of the Catholic Church, that the primacy and infallibility of the Pope means that he can never make mistakes of judgment, or errors of any kind, is absolutely false. Nothing in the story of Honorius mitigates against the teaching of primacy and infallibility.

M.

I agree with most of what you said, except for the idea that Pope Honorius was guilty of material heresy. Being ambiguous and being a heretic are different things. Further, even now we recognize that those charged with the heresy fo monophysitism may have not been monophysites. Honorius, was probably not really guilty of the heresy that he was charged with as well.

...the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

I dont understand this. Why would his anathema depend on whether he spoke ex cathedra? The council made no mention of papal infalability or speaking ex cathedra. The council simply said he was a heretic and anathematized him. The EO and RC consider that council to be valid. To me, that means a few things.

1). The pope does not have universal and supreme authority.2). Union with him is not necessary for orthodoxy. Only orthodoxy is necessary for orthodoxy.3). Honorius was a heretic.

Or it could mean that the council was in error when it anathematized him. Or if Hornorius really was a heretic, then he wasn't the Pope, so one need not be in communion with him.

Or he was pope of Rome, a heretic, in communion with heretics and not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the Ecumenical Council was correct (being infallible and irreformable, it would be) in anathematizing him.

For those Catholics and Orthodox who prefer something closer to the historical and doctrinal truth of the matter, in contradistinction to bluster the chronicle at the above link is trustworthy in terms of the documents discussed.

It really is a fascinating story and is one of the clear examples in history that subsequently has resulted in the muting of the unctuous tendency to anathematize people rather than ideas.

The idea that Honorius was a formal heretic by intent does not stand up in the face of documentary evidence. It is clear that Honorius had no intention of splitting the Church in fact he was stretching to find a way to keep the Church from splitting and by doing so he plunged his own pen in the well of material heresy, by the failure to affirm the truth, while also trying to find common ground in the argument of the action of the human will of the Son of God. Had he done both, his record in history would have been much cleaner.

The contemporary idea, oft expressed by those who are critical of the Catholic Church, that the primacy and infallibility of the Pope means that he can never make mistakes of judgment, or errors of any kind, is absolutely false. Nothing in the story of Honorius mitigates against the teaching of primacy and infallibility.

M.

I agree with most of what you said, except for the idea that Pope Honorius was guilty of material heresy. Being ambiguous and being a heretic are different things. Further, even now we recognize that those charged with the heresy fo monophysitism may have not been monophysites. Honorius, was probably not really guilty of the heresy that he was charged with as well.

According to the article on Honorius in the Catholic Encyclopedia online: "It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius. And it would be harsh to regard him as a "private heretic", for he admittedly had excellent intentions."http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm#VI

Given that Pastor Aeternus claims it comes "with the approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting record," it bears to investigate the make up of that council. I'll start with sources loyal to the Vatican.

The Legion of Mary makes the summary

Quote

This council was summoned by Pope Pius IX by the bull Aeterni Patris of 29 June 1868. The first session was held in St. Peter's basilica on 8 December 1869 in the presence and under the presidency of the Pope.

The purpose of the council was, besides the condemnation of contemporary errors, to define the Catholic doctrine concerning the Church of Christ. In fact, in the three following sessions, there was discussion and approval of only two constitutions: Dogmatic Constitution On The Catholic Faith and First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, the latter dealing with the primacy and infallibility of the bishop of Rome. The discussion and approval of the latter constitution gave rise, particularly in Germany, to bitter and most serious controversies which led to the withdrawal from the Church of those known as "Old Catholics".

The outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war led to the interruption of the council. It was in fact never resumed, nor was it ever officially closed. As in other councils at which the Pope was present and presided, the decrees were in the form of bulls, at the end of which was the clear declaration: "with the approval of the sacred council". Very large numbers attended this council, including, for the first time, bishops from outside Europe and its neighboring lands. Bishops from the eastern Orthodox Churches were also invited, but did not come.

On 6 December, 1864, two days before the publication of the Syllabus, Pius IX announced, at a session of the Congregation of Rites, his intention to call a general council. He commissioned the cardinals residing at Rome to express in writing their views as to the opportuneness of the scheme, and also to name the subjects which, in their opinion, should be laid before the council for discussion. Of the twenty-one reports sent in, only one, that of Cardinal Pentini, expressed the opinion that there was no occasion for the holding of an ecumenical council. The others affirmed the relative necessity of such an assembly, although five did not consider the time suitable. Nearly all sent lists of questions that seemed to need conciliar discussion. Early in March, 1865, the pope appointed a commission of five cardinals to discuss preliminary questions in regard to the council. This was the important "Congregazione speziale direttrice per gli affari del futuro concilio generale", generally called the directing preparatory commission, or the central commission. Four more cardinals were added to the number of its members, and besides a secretary it was given eight consultors. It held numerous meetings in the interval between 9 March, 1865, and Dec., 1869. Its first motion was that bishops of various countries should also be called upon for suggestions as to matters for discussion, and on 27 March, 1865, the pope commanded thirty-six bishops of the Latin Rite designated by him to express their views under pledge of silence. Early in 1866 he also designated several bishops of the Oriental Rite under the same conditions. It was now necessary to form commissions for the more thorough discussion of the subjects to be debated at the council. Accordingly, theologians and canonists, belonging to the secular and regular clergy, were summoned to Rome from the various countries to co-operate in the work. As early as 1865 the nuncios were asked to suggest names of suitable people for these preliminary commissions. The war between Austria and Italy in 1866 and the withdrawal of the French troops from Rome on 11 Dec. of the same year caused an unwelcome interruption of the preparatory labours. They also made the original plan, which was to open the council on the eighteenth centenary festiva of the martyrdom of the two great Apostles, 29 June, 1867, impossible. However, the pope made use of the presence at Rome of nearly five hundred bishops, who had come to attend the centennial celebration, to make the first public announcement of the council at a consistory held on 26 June, 1867. The bishops expressed their agreement with joy in an address dated 1 July. After the return of the French army of protection on 30 Oct., 1867, the continuance of the preparations and the holding of the council itself seemed again possible. The preparatory commission now debated exhaustively the question who should be invited to attend the council. That the cardinals and diocesan bishops should be summoned was self-evident. It was also decided that the titular bishops had the right to be called, and that of the heads of the orders an invitation should be given to the abbots nullius, the abbots general of congregations formed from several monasteries, and lastly, to the generals of the religious orders. It was considered wiser, on account of the state of affairs at the time, not to send an actual invitation to Catholic princes, yet it was intended to grant admission to them or their representatives on demand. In this sense, therefore, the Bull of Convocation, "Æterni Patris", was promulgated, 29 June, 1868; it appointed 8 Dec., 1869, as the date for the opening of the council. The objects of the council were to be the correction of modern errors and a seasonable revision of the legislation of the Church. A special Brief, "Arcano divinæ providentiæ", of 8 Sept., 1868 invited non-Uniate Orientals to appear. A third Brief, "Jam vos omnes", of 13 Sept., 1868, notified Protestants also of the convoking of the council, and exhorted them to use the occasion to reflect on the return to the one household of faith.

Although the Bull convoking the council was received with joy by the bulk of the Catholic masses, it aroused much discontent in many places, especially in Germany, France, and England. In these countries it was feared that the council would promulgate an exact determination of the primatial prerogatives of the papacy and the definition of papal infallibility. The dean of the theological faculty of Paris, Bishop Maret, wrote in opposition to these doctrines the work "Du concile générale et de la paix religieuse" (2 vols., Paris 1869). Bishop Dupanloup of Orléans published the work "Observations sur la controverse soulevée relativement à la définition de l infaillibilité au prochain concile" (Paris, Nov., 1869). Maret's work was answered by several French bishops and by Archbishop Manning. Archbishop Dechamps of Mechlin, Belgium, who had written a work in favour of the definition entitled "L infaillibilité et le concile générale" (Paris, 1869), became involved in a controversy with Dupanloup. In England a book entitled "The Condemnation of Pope Honorius" (London, 1868), written by the convert, Le Page Renouf, aroused animated discussions in newspapers and periodicals. Renouf's publication was refuted by Father Botalla, S.J., in "Honorius Reconsidered with Reference to Recent Apologies" (London, 1869). Letters from French correspondents in the first number for Feb., 1869, of the "Civiltà Cattolica", which stated that the majority of French Catholics desired the declaration of infallibility, added fresh fuel to the flames. In particular, it led to the appearance in the discussion of Ignaz Döllinger, provost of St. Cajetan and professor of church history at Munich. From now onwards Döllinger was the leading spirit of the movement in Germany hostile to the council. He disputed most passionately the Syllabus and the doctrine of papal infallibility in five anonymous articles that were published in March, 1869, in the "Allgemeine Zeitung" of Augsburg. A large number of Catholic scholars opposed him vigorously, especially after he published his articles in book form under the pseudonym of "Janus", "Der Papst und das Konzil" (Leipzig, 1869). Among these was Professor Joseph Hergenröther of Würzburg, who issued in reply "Anti-Janus" (Freiburg, 1870). Still the excitement over the matter grew in such measure that fourteen of the twenty-two German bishops who met at Fulda early in Sept., 1869, felt themselves constrained to call the attention of the Holy Father to it in a special address, stating that on account of the excitement the time was not opportune for defining papal infallibility. The papal notifications addressed to the schismatic Orientals and the Protestants did not produce the desired effect. The European Governments received from Prince Hohenlohe, president of the Bavarian ministry, a circular letter drawn up by Döllinger, designed to prejudice the different Courts against the coming council; but they decided to remain neutral for the time being. Russia alone forbade its Catholic bishops to attend the council.

In the meantime zealous work had been done at Rome in preparation for the council. Besides the general direction that it exercised, the preparatory commission had to draw up an exhaustive order of procedure for the debates of the council. Five special committees, each presided over by a cardinal and having together eighty-eight consultors, prepared the plan (schemata) to be laid before the council. These committees were appointed to consider respectively:

dogma; church discipline; orders; Oriental Churches and missions; ecclesiastico-political questions. It may justly be doubted whether the preliminary preparations for any council had ever been made more thoroughly, or more clearly directed to the aim to be attained. As the day of its opening approached, the following drafts were ready for discussion: three great dogmatic drafts, (a) on the Catholic doctrine in opposition to the errors which frequently spring from Rationalism, (b) on the Church of Christ and, (c) on Christian marriage; twenty-eight drafts treating matters of church discipline. They had reference to bishops, episcopal sees, the different grades of the other clergy seminaries, the arrangement of philosophical and theological studies, sermons, the catechism, rituals, impediments to marriage, civil marriage, mixed marriages, improvement of Christian morals, feast days, fasts and abstinences, duelling, magnetism, spiritualism, secret societies, etc.; eighteen drafts of decrees had reference to the religious orders; two were on the Oriental Rites and missions; these subjects had also been considered in the other drafts of decrees. In addition a large number of subjects for discussion had been sent by the bishops of various countries. Thus, for instance, the bishops of the church provinces of Quebec and Halifax demanded the lessening of the impediments to marriage, revision of the Breviary, and, above all, the reform and codification of the entire canon law. The petition of Archbishop Spalding of Baltimore treated, among other things, the relations between Church and State religious indifference, secret societies, and the infallibility of the pope. The definition of this last was demanded by various bishops. Others desired a revision of the index of forbidden books. No less than nine petitions bearing nearly two hundred signatures demanded the definition of the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. Over three hundred fathers of the council requested the elevation of St. Joseph as patron saint of the Universal Church.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

...the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

I dont understand this. Why would his anathema depend on whether he spoke ex cathedra? The council made no mention of papal infalability or speaking ex cathedra. The council simply said he was a heretic and anathematized him. The EO and RC consider that council to be valid. To me, that means a few things.

1). The pope does not have universal and supreme authority.2). Union with him is not necessary for orthodoxy. Only orthodoxy is necessary for orthodoxy.3). Honorius was a heretic.

Or it could mean that the council was in error when it anathematized him. Or if Hornorius really was a heretic, then he wasn't the Pope, so one need not be in communion with him.

Or he was pope of Rome, a heretic, in communion with heretics and not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the Ecumenical Council was correct (being infallible and irreformable, it would be) in anathematizing him.

For those Catholics and Orthodox who prefer something closer to the historical and doctrinal truth of the matter, in contradistinction to bluster the chronicle at the above link is trustworthy in terms of the documents discussed.

It really is a fascinating story and is one of the clear examples in history that subsequently has resulted in the muting of the unctuous tendency to anathematize people rather than ideas.

4:3 "To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received." 4 "It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing."5. "The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions."6 "For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles""Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."7 "This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell."

Well, given this, it is not hard to see how the Pope St. Agatho's Letter can be seen as ex cathdra. However, it is also easy to see how pope Honorius' letters, condemned explicitely by the Fifth Ecumenical Councils, also meet this criteria of ex cathedra.

"I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do"-the Roman Missal

It would seem that the act of omission committed by Honorius' discharge of office would constitute a counterpart of an act of commission like Munificentissimus Deus by Pope Pius XII, at less according to what Pastor Aeternus, backed by the Sentence and Definition of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

It is clear that Honorius had no intention of splitting the Church in fact he was stretching to find a way to keep the Church from splitting and by doing so he plunged his own pen in the well of material heresy, by the failure to affirm the truth, while also trying to find common ground in the argument of the action of the human will of the Son of God. Had he done both, his record in history would have been much cleaner.

The contemporary idea, oft expressed by those who are critical of the Catholic Church, that the primacy and infallibility of the Pope means that he can never make mistakes of judgment, or errors of any kind, is absolutely false.

We know that he makes mistakes of judgment, or errors of any kind. That is not what is argued here.

What is argued is that by the terms of Pastor Aeternus, the Vatican has to affirm the Sixth Councils anathematization of Honorius as a heretic.

Nothing in the story of Honorius mitigates against the teaching of primacy and infallibility.

If that were true, it wouldn't have come up even as V I was opening, and Hefele wouldn't have had to rewrite his account, and Bellarmine would not have been undone by the discovery the Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, and the prominent condemnation of Honorius in the old office of the commemoration of Pope St. Leo II would not have been removed.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

...the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

I dont understand this. Why would his anathema depend on whether he spoke ex cathedra? The council made no mention of papal infalability or speaking ex cathedra. The council simply said he was a heretic and anathematized him. The EO and RC consider that council to be valid. To me, that means a few things.

1). The pope does not have universal and supreme authority.2). Union with him is not necessary for orthodoxy. Only orthodoxy is necessary for orthodoxy.3). Honorius was a heretic.

Or it could mean that the council was in error when it anathematized him. Or if Hornorius really was a heretic, then he wasn't the Pope, so one need not be in communion with him.

Or he was pope of Rome, a heretic, in communion with heretics and not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the Ecumenical Council was correct (being infallible and irreformable, it would be) in anathematizing him.

For those Catholics and Orthodox who prefer something closer to the historical and doctrinal truth of the matter, in contradistinction to bluster the chronicle at the above link is trustworthy in terms of the documents discussed.

It really is a fascinating story and is one of the clear examples in history that subsequently has resulted in the muting of the unctuous tendency to anathematize people rather than ideas.

The idea that Honorius was a formal heretic by intent does not stand up in the face of documentary evidence. It is clear that Honorius had no intention of splitting the Church in fact he was stretching to find a way to keep the Church from splitting and by doing so he plunged his own pen in the well of material heresy, by the failure to affirm the truth, while also trying to find common ground in the argument of the action of the human will of the Son of God. Had he done both, his record in history would have been much cleaner.

The contemporary idea, oft expressed by those who are critical of the Catholic Church, that the primacy and infallibility of the Pope means that he can never make mistakes of judgment, or errors of any kind, is absolutely false. Nothing in the story of Honorius mitigates against the teaching of primacy and infallibility.

M.

I agree with most of what you said, except for the idea that Pope Honorius was guilty of material heresy. Being ambiguous and being a heretic are different things. Further, even now we recognize that those charged with the heresy fo monophysitism may have not been monophysites. Honorius, was probably not really guilty of the heresy that he was charged with as well.

Nice try.

The Definition of the Fourth Ecumenical Council condemned the teaching of Eutychus, and stills does.

It did not condemn, nor mention, Pope Dioscoros at all, and it is his partisans that the boldfaced, i.e. the OO, apply. The Council only deposed Pope Dioscoros for refusing to answer its summons:

Quote

The holy and great and ecumenical Synod, which by the grace of God according to the constitution of our most pious and beloved of God emperors assembled together at Chalcedon the city of Bithynia, in the martyry of the most holy and victorious Martyr Euphemia to Dioscorus.

We do you to wit that on the thirteenth day of the month of October you were deposed from the episcopate and made a stranger to all ecclesiastical order (θεσμοῦ ) by the holy and ecumenical synod, on account of your disregard of the divine canons, and of your disobedience to this holy and ecumenical synod and on account of the other crimes of which you have been found guilty, for even when called to answer your accusers three times by this holy and great synod according to the divine canons you did not come.

As, in addition to other things, the impious Nestorius has not obeyed our citation, and did not receive the holy bishops who were sent by us to him, we were compelled to examine his ungodly doctrines. We discovered that he had held and published impious doctrines in his letters and treatises, as well as in discourses which he delivered in this city, and which have been testified to. Compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter (ἀναγκαίως κατεπειχθέντες ἀπό τε τῶν κανόνων, καὶ ἐκ τὴς ἐπιστολῆς, κ.τ.λ.) of our most holy father and fellow-servant Cœlestine, the Roman bishop, we have come, with many tears, to this sorrowful sentence against him, namely, that our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has blasphemed, decrees by the holy Synod that Nestorius be excluded from the episcopal dignity, and from all priestly communion.

The holy, great, and Ecumenical Synod which has been assembled by the grace of God, and the religious decree of the most religious and faithful and mighty Sovereign Constantine, in this God-protected and royal city of Constantinople, New Rome, in the Hall of the imperial Palace, called Trullus, has decreed as follows....The holy and Ecumenical Synod further says, this pious and orthodox Creed of the Divine grace would be sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean Theodorus, who was Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were Archbishops of this royal city, and moreover, Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome...has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris, Severus, and Themistius, and endeavouring craftily to destroy the perfection of the incarnation of the same our Lord Jesus Christ, our God, by blasphemously representing his flesh endowed with a rational soul as devoid of will or operation. Christ, therefore, our God, has raised up our faithful Sovereign, a new David, having found him a man after his own heart, who as it is written, “has not suffered his eyes to sleep nor his eyelids to slumber,” until he has found a perfect declaration of orthodoxy by this our God-collected and holy Synod

Definition of the Holy Sixth Ecumenical Council

Quote

The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters...to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul....we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines. We have also examined the synodal letter of Sophronius of holy memory, some time Patriarch of the Holy City of Christ our God, Jerusalem, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and with the Apostolic teachings, and with those of the holy approved Fathers. Therefore we have received it as orthodox and as salutary to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and have decreed that it is right that his name be inserted in the diptychs of the Holy Churches.

The Sentence of the Sixth Ecumenical Council Against the Monothelites

Quote

In the name of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour, the most pious Emperor, the peaceful and Christ-loving Constantine, an Emperor faithful to God in Jesus Christ, to all our Christ-loving people living in this God-preserved and royal city...In the name of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour, the most pious Emperor, the peaceful and Christ-loving Constantine, an Emperor faithful to God in Jesus Christ, to all our Christ-loving people living in this God-preserved and royal city...He, the Emperor, had therefore convoked this holy and Ecumenical Synod, and published the present edict with the confession of faith, in order to confirm and establish its decrees...As he recognized the five earlier Ecumenical Synods, so he anathematized all heretics from Simon Magus, but especially the originator and patrons of the new heresy, Theodore and Sergius; also Pope Honorius, who was their adherent and patron in everything, and confirmed the heresy...and ordained that no one henceforth should hold a different faith, or venture to teach one will and one energy. In no other than the orthodox faith could men be saved. Whoever did not obey the imperial edict should, if he were a bishop or cleric be deposed; if an official, punished with confiscation of property and loss of the girdle; if a private person, banished from the residence and all other cities.

The Imperial Edict Posted in the Third Atrium of the Great Church Near What is Called Dicymbala to Enforce the Definition of the Sixth Ecumenical Council

Quote

Many years to the Emperor! Many years to Constantine, our great Emperor! Many years to the Orthodox King! Many years to our Emperor that maketh peace! Many years to Constantine, a second Martian! Many years to Constantine, a new Theodosius! Many years to Constantine, a new Justinian! Many years to the keeper of the orthodox faith! O Lord preserve the foundation of the Churches! O Lord preserve the keeper of the faith!...To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!...To all heretics, anathema! To all who side with heretics, anathema!May the faith of the Christians increase, and long years to the orthodox and Ecumenical Council!

Acclamation of the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council

Quote

We affirm that in Christ there be two wills and two operations according to the reality of each nature, as also the Sixth Synod, held at Constantinople, taught, casting out Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Macarius, and those who agree with them, and all those who are unwilling to be reverent

Decree of the Seventh Ecumenical Council

Quote

And now having carefully traced the traditions of the Apostles and Fathers, we are bold to speak. Having but one mind by the inbreathing of the most Holy Spirit, and being all knit together in one, and understanding the harmonious tradition of the Catholic Church, we are in perfect harmony with the symphonies set forth by the six, holy and ecumenical councils; and accordingly we have anathematised the madness of Arius,...also anathematised the idle tales of Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius; and the doctrine of one will held by Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, and Pyrrhus, or rather, we have anathematised their own evil will.

It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

...the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

I dont understand this. Why would his anathema depend on whether he spoke ex cathedra? The council made no mention of papal infalability or speaking ex cathedra. The council simply said he was a heretic and anathematized him. The EO and RC consider that council to be valid. To me, that means a few things.

1). The pope does not have universal and supreme authority.2). Union with him is not necessary for orthodoxy. Only orthodoxy is necessary for orthodoxy.3). Honorius was a heretic.

Or it could mean that the council was in error when it anathematized him. Or if Hornorius really was a heretic, then he wasn't the Pope, so one need not be in communion with him.

Or he was pope of Rome, a heretic, in communion with heretics and not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the Ecumenical Council was correct (being infallible and irreformable, it would be) in anathematizing him.

For those Catholics and Orthodox who prefer something closer to the historical and doctrinal truth of the matter, in contradistinction to bluster the chronicle at the above link is trustworthy in terms of the documents discussed.

It really is a fascinating story and is one of the clear examples in history that subsequently has resulted in the muting of the unctuous tendency to anathematize people rather than ideas.

The idea that Honorius was a formal heretic by intent does not stand up in the face of documentary evidence. It is clear that Honorius had no intention of splitting the Church in fact he was stretching to find a way to keep the Church from splitting and by doing so he plunged his own pen in the well of material heresy, by the failure to affirm the truth, while also trying to find common ground in the argument of the action of the human will of the Son of God. Had he done both, his record in history would have been much cleaner.

The contemporary idea, oft expressed by those who are critical of the Catholic Church, that the primacy and infallibility of the Pope means that he can never make mistakes of judgment, or errors of any kind, is absolutely false. Nothing in the story of Honorius mitigates against the teaching of primacy and infallibility.

M.

I agree with most of what you said, except for the idea that Pope Honorius was guilty of material heresy. Being ambiguous and being a heretic are different things. Further, even now we recognize that those charged with the heresy fo monophysitism may have not been monophysites. Honorius, was probably not really guilty of the heresy that he was charged with as well.

According to the article on Honorius in the Catholic Encyclopedia online: "It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius. And it would be harsh to regard him as a "private heretic", for he admittedly had excellent intentions."http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm#VI

Interesting he believed in the priority of the St. Matthew gospel. Some of his other books are favourites of Roman Catholic apologists in favour of the papacy, regularly cited in the online tug of war between Catholics and Anglicans on St. Cyprian.

Quote

John Chapman was thought by competent critics to be the greatest patristics scholar of his time. Reputedly he had read all 378 volumes of Migne. However, he did not only read both Greek and Latin with the greatest facility, but also read and wrote French, Italian and German with similar ease. Many of his contributions to biblical scholarship and patristics have proved of lasting value, especially his work on St Cyprian, St John the Presbyter (of Papias), and on the priority of the Gospel according to Matthew that, so Chapman argued in support of the early Church tradition, was the first Gospel account to have been written (see also Synoptic Problem).

Among the novices that Chapman clothed in the monastic habit was in 1932 John Bernard Orchard, who soon felt drawn to follow his Abbot into researching the priority of the Gospel according to Matthew in the light of the patristic evidence, and eventually, after also constructing a synopsis of the four Gospel accounts in Greek and English for the easier study of the compositional sequence Matthew-Luke-Mark-John that is supported by certain early Christian writers, produced what by hindsight may be considered a synthesis of his and his mentor's insights.

...the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

I dont understand this. Why would his anathema depend on whether he spoke ex cathedra? The council made no mention of papal infalability or speaking ex cathedra. The council simply said he was a heretic and anathematized him. The EO and RC consider that council to be valid. To me, that means a few things.

1). The pope does not have universal and supreme authority.2). Union with him is not necessary for orthodoxy. Only orthodoxy is necessary for orthodoxy.3). Honorius was a heretic.

Or it could mean that the council was in error when it anathematized him. Or if Hornorius really was a heretic, then he wasn't the Pope, so one need not be in communion with him.

Or he was pope of Rome, a heretic, in communion with heretics and not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the Ecumenical Council was correct (being infallible and irreformable, it would be) in anathematizing him.

For those Catholics and Orthodox who prefer something closer to the historical and doctrinal truth of the matter, in contradistinction to bluster the chronicle at the above link is trustworthy in terms of the documents discussed.

It really is a fascinating story and is one of the clear examples in history that subsequently has resulted in the muting of the unctuous tendency to anathematize people rather than ideas.

The idea that Honorius was a formal heretic by intent does not stand up in the face of documentary evidence. It is clear that Honorius had no intention of splitting the Church in fact he was stretching to find a way to keep the Church from splitting and by doing so he plunged his own pen in the well of material heresy, by the failure to affirm the truth, while also trying to find common ground in the argument of the action of the human will of the Son of God. Had he done both, his record in history would have been much cleaner.

The contemporary idea, oft expressed by those who are critical of the Catholic Church, that the primacy and infallibility of the Pope means that he can never make mistakes of judgment, or errors of any kind, is absolutely false. Nothing in the story of Honorius mitigates against the teaching of primacy and infallibility.

M.

I agree with most of what you said, except for the idea that Pope Honorius was guilty of material heresy. Being ambiguous and being a heretic are different things. Further, even now we recognize that those charged with the heresy fo monophysitism may have not been monophysites. Honorius, was probably not really guilty of the heresy that he was charged with as well.

According to the article on Honorius in the Catholic Encyclopedia online: "It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius. And it would be harsh to regard him as a "private heretic", for he admittedly had excellent intentions."http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm#VI

I don't agree with the article.

OK. But it looks like some Catholics do agree with the article? So it presents a problem of sorts.

No documentary evidence exists that shows that the Fathers indulged in hair splitting over formal and informal heretic, material v. immaterial heresy, etc.They just say "anathema to Honorius the heretic!"

There is no documentary evidence that supports that Honorius intended to teach against the Church. There is no formal heresy and one has to ask why they waited until LONG after he was dead to pronounce against him rather than moving against him immediately. What he was trying to do was hardly a secret. So there is a great deal missing in your interpretive scheme.

Nothing in the story of Honorius mitigates against the teaching of primacy and infallibility.

If that were true, it wouldn't have come up even as V I was opening, and Hefele wouldn't have had to rewrite his account, and Bellarmine would not have been undone by the discovery the Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, and the prominent condemnation of Honorius in the old office of the commemoration of Pope St. Leo II would not have been removed.[/quote]

Nothing in the story of Honorius mitigates against the teaching of primacy and infallibility.

If that were true, it wouldn't have come up even as V I was opening, and Hefele wouldn't have had to rewrite his account, and Bellarmine would not have been undone by the discovery the Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, and the prominent condemnation of Honorius in the old office of the commemoration of Pope St. Leo II would not have been removed.

Let me repeat. Your interpretive scheme is faulty and there is nothing in the story of Honorius that mitigates against the teaching of primacy and infallibility.

...the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

I dont understand this. Why would his anathema depend on whether he spoke ex cathedra? The council made no mention of papal infalability or speaking ex cathedra. The council simply said he was a heretic and anathematized him. The EO and RC consider that council to be valid. To me, that means a few things.

1). The pope does not have universal and supreme authority.2). Union with him is not necessary for orthodoxy. Only orthodoxy is necessary for orthodoxy.3). Honorius was a heretic.

Or it could mean that the council was in error when it anathematized him. Or if Hornorius really was a heretic, then he wasn't the Pope, so one need not be in communion with him.

Or he was pope of Rome, a heretic, in communion with heretics and not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the Ecumenical Council was correct (being infallible and irreformable, it would be) in anathematizing him.

For those Catholics and Orthodox who prefer something closer to the historical and doctrinal truth of the matter, in contradistinction to bluster the chronicle at the above link is trustworthy in terms of the documents discussed.

It really is a fascinating story and is one of the clear examples in history that subsequently has resulted in the muting of the unctuous tendency to anathematize people rather than ideas.

The idea that Honorius was a formal heretic by intent does not stand up in the face of documentary evidence. It is clear that Honorius had no intention of splitting the Church in fact he was stretching to find a way to keep the Church from splitting and by doing so he plunged his own pen in the well of material heresy, by the failure to affirm the truth, while also trying to find common ground in the argument of the action of the human will of the Son of God. Had he done both, his record in history would have been much cleaner.

The contemporary idea, oft expressed by those who are critical of the Catholic Church, that the primacy and infallibility of the Pope means that he can never make mistakes of judgment, or errors of any kind, is absolutely false. Nothing in the story of Honorius mitigates against the teaching of primacy and infallibility.

M.

I agree with most of what you said, except for the idea that Pope Honorius was guilty of material heresy. Being ambiguous and being a heretic are different things. Further, even now we recognize that those charged with the heresy fo monophysitism may have not been monophysites. Honorius, was probably not really guilty of the heresy that he was charged with as well.

According to the article on Honorius in the Catholic Encyclopedia online: "It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius. And it would be harsh to regard him as a "private heretic", for he admittedly had excellent intentions."http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm#VI

I don't agree with the article.

Why not. It is telling the truth. The anathema is of his public statement, not of the man, his personal beliefs or his intentions. That very fact makes the whole issue a non-issue with respect to the First Vatican Council and there are no documents to prove otherwise.

According to the article on Honorius in the Catholic Encyclopedia online: "It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius. And it would be harsh to regard him as a "private heretic", for he admittedly had excellent intentions."http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm#VI

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

No documentary evidence exists that shows that the Fathers indulged in hair splitting over formal and informal heretic, material v. immaterial heresy, etc.They just say "anathema to Honorius the heretic!"

There is no documentary evidence that supports that Honorius intended to teach against the Church.

The Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council found otherwise. Of course, the problem is that they destroyed the evidence. But then, they destroyed the evidence against the gnostics, Arius, Origen, Nestorius, etc. as well. Or maybe they're not heretics either. Is EP Sergius a heretic?

What he was trying to do was hardly a secret. So there is a great deal missing in your interpretive scheme.

Blame the Fathers.

But no, there is plenty. I've be posting more.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

On first glance, it would seem that we would agree with Pastor Aeternus in its beginning:

Quote

1. The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls [37], in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption, determined to build a Church in which, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one faith and charity.

2. Therefore, before he was glorified, he besought his Father, not for the apostles only, but also for those who were to believe in him through their word, that they all might be one as the Son himself and the Father are one [38].

3. So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39], even as he had been sent by the Father [40], in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.

but the devil is always in the details, and PA continues to give them.

Quote

4. In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.

5. Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the Church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation [41].

6. And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the Church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation, we judge it necessary, with the approbation of the Sacred Council, and for the protection, defense and growth of the Catholic flock, to propound the doctrine concerning the 1. institution, 2. permanence and 3. nature of the sacred and apostolic primacy, upon which the strength and coherence of the whole Church depends.

7. This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole Church.

8. Furthermore, we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord's flock.

It there is any doubts as to what was envisioned by this, the Roman Catechism, mandated by Trent and promulgated by Pope Pius V

Quote

The Church has but one ruler and one governor, the invisible one, Christ, whom the eternal Father hath made head over all the Church, which is his body; the visible one, the Pope, who, as legitimate successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, fills the Apostolic chair.

It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church. This St. Jerome clearly perceived and as clearly expressed when, in his work against Jovinian, he wrote: One is elected that, by the appointment of a head, all occasion of schism may be removed. In his letter to Pope Damasus the same holy Doctor writes: Away with envy, let the ambition of Roman grandeur cease! I speak to the successor of the fisherman, and to the disciple of the cross. Following no chief but Christ, I am united in communion with your Holiness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that on that rock is built the Church. Whoever will eat the lamb outside this house is profane; whoever is not in the ark of Noah shall perish in the .flood.

The same doctrine was long before established by Saints Irenaeus and Cyprian. The latter, speaking of the unity of the Church observes: The Lord said to Peter, I say to thee, Peter! thou art Peter: and upon this rock I will build my Church. He builds His Church on one. And although after His Resurrection He gave equal power to all His Apostles, saying: As the Father hath sent me, I also send you, receive ye the Holy Ghost; yet to make unity more manifest, He decided by His own authority that it should be derived from one alone, etc.

Again, Optatus of Milevi says: You cannot be excused on the score of ignorance, knowing as you do that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was first conferred on Peter, who occupied it as head of the Apostles; in order that in that one chair the unity of the Church might be preserved by all, and that the other Apostles might not claim each a chair for himself; so that now he who erects another in opposition to this single chair is a schismatic and a prevaricator.

Later on St. Basil wrote: Peter is made the foundation, because he says: Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God; and hears in reply that he is a rock. But although a rock, he is not such a rock as Christ; for Christ is truly an immovable rock, but Peter, only by virtue of that rock. For Jesus bestows His dignities on others; He is a priest, and He makes priests; a rock, and He makes a rock; what belongs to Himself, He bestows on His servants.

Lastly, St. Ambrose says: Because he alone of all of them professed (Christ) he was placed above all.

Should anyone object that the Church is content with one Head and one Spouse, Jesus Christ, and requires no other, the answer is obvious. For as we deem Christ not only the author of all the Sacraments, but also their invisible minister �� He it is who baptises, He it is who absolves, although men are appointed by Him the external ministers of the Sacraments �� so has He placed over His Church, which He governs by His invisible Spirit, a man to be His vicar and the minister of His power. A visible Church requires a visible head; therefore the Saviour appointed Peter head and pastor of all the faithful, when He committed to his care the feeding of all His sheep, in such ample terms that He willed the very same power of ruling and governing the entire Church to descend to Peter's successors.

PatriarchsIn the fourth degree come Patriarchs, that is to say, the first and highest of the Fathers. Formerly, besides the Roman Pontiff, there were in the universal Church only four Patriarchs, who, however, were not of equal dignity. Thus Constantinople, though it reached the patriarchal honour only after all the others, yet it obtained a higher rank by reason of being the capital of the Empire. Next in rank came the Patriarch of Alexandria, which Church had been founded by St. Mark the Evangelist by order of the Prince of the Apostles. The third was that of Antioch, where Peter fixed his first See. Finally, that of Jerusalem, a See first governed by James, the brother of our Lord.

The PopeAbove all these, the Catholic Church has always placed the Supreme Pontiff of Rome, whom Cyril of Alexandria, in the Council of Ephesus, named the Chief Bishop, Father and Patriarch of the whole world. He sits in that chair of Peter in which beyond every shadow of doubt the Prince of the Apostles sat to the end of his days, and hence it is that in him the Church recognises the highest degree of dignity, and a universality of jurisdiction derived, not from the decrees of men or Councils, but from God Himself. Wherefore he is the Father and guide of all the faithful, of all the Bishops, and of all the prelates, no matter how high their power and office; and as successor of St. Peter, as true and lawful Vicar of Christ our Lord, he governs the universal Church.From what has been said, therefore, pastors should teach what are the principal duties and functions of the various ecclesiastical orders and degrees, and also who is the minister of this Sacrament.

The Minister of Holy OrdersBeyond all doubt, it is to the Bishop that the administration (of orders) belongs, as is easily proved by the authority of Holy Scripture, by most certain tradition, by the testimony of all the Fathers, by the decrees of the Councils, and by the usage and practice of Holy Church.

It is true that permission has been granted to some abbots occasionally to administer those orders that are minor and not sacred; yet there is no doubt whatever that it is the proper office of the Bishop, and of the Bishop alone to confer the orders called holy or major.

To ordain subdeacons, deacons and priests, one Bishop suffices; but in accordance with an Apostolic tradition that has been always observed in the Church, Bishops are consecrated by three Bishops.

The Roman Catechism, PA, and the CCC (which Lord willing we will get to) are wrong, of course, but before I get into that, I'll tie these claims, given the merger of the threads, to the case against Honorius.

In the words of the CE

Quote

Pope (625-12 October, 638), a , consecrated 27 October (Duchesne) or 3 November (Jaffé, Mann), in succession to Boniface V.

Quote

The origin of the Monothelite controversy is thus related by Sergius in his letter to Pope Honorius. When the Emperor Heraclius in the course of the war which he began about 619, came to Theodosiopolis (Erzeroum) in Armenia (about 622), a Monophysite named Paul, a leader of the Acephali, made a speech before him in favour of his heresy. The emperor refuted him with theological arguments, and incidentally made use of the expression "one operation" of Christ. Later on (about 626) he inquired of Cyrus, Bishop of Phasis and metropolitan of the Lazi, whether his words were correct. Cyrus was uncertain, and by the emperor's order wrote to Sergius the Patriarch of Constantinople, whom Heraclius greatly trusted, for advice. Sergius in reply sent him a letter said to have been written by Mennas of Constantinople to Pope Vigilius and approved by the latter, in which several authorities were cited for one operation and one will. This letter was afterwards declared to be a forgery and was admitted to be such at the Sixth General Council. Nothing more occurred, according to Sergius, until in June, 631, Cyrus was promoted by the emperor to the See of Alexandria...

In 631 Cyrus took the throne of Alexandria as his reward, and on the basis of the monoenergist formula many miaphysites were received into his patriarchate. Negotiations were begun in 629 with the miaphyisite Patriarch Athanasius of Antioch, who entered into union with the Patriarchy, taking the see of Antioch, on the basis of the formula "two united natures in Christ, one will and one activity." The Catholicos of All Armenia was brought into back into union with the Pentarchy at the Synod of Theodosiopolis (Karin/Erzerum) in 633 on the basis of the monoenergist formula. Arcadius of Cyprus received the dogma in 623, and ascended to head the Church of Cyprus and lead it into heresy in 630 (so I remembered incorrectly on Cyprus' record).

So what?

Well, if Honorius ascended the apostolic throne of St. Peter in 630, then, according to PA, all authority in the Church flowed from him. Which means he is responsible for Cyrus becoming Pope of Alexandria, for Athanasius entering into union (as the papal assent, to judge from Lyons, Florence, Brest, Uzhhorod, etc, is necessary) as the Patriarch of Antioch, for the Armenian Catholicate entering into union via heresy with Rome, and Arcadius taking over Cyprus. And if, when EP Sergius wrote to him, Honorius, " in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority," using "this gift of truth and never-failing faith [being] therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error" instead of taking the opportunity to depose the bishops misusing their authority to teach heresy-as, according to PA, they were "bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world"-instead of Orthodoxy, Honorius faciliated heresy as well as Sergius did.

"Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body." Honorius, receiving Cyrus, Athanasius, Arcadius etc. as members of the body of which he, Honorius, was head, did "abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received" and being "in agreement with" the other heresiarchs usurping the thrones of the Pentarchy, effectively lead the Roman Church into heresy. He who does not gather, scatters. Instead of making "sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received"

Honorius, if he had the powers PA claims, left the shepherds in place who were poisoning the sheep. Whether they ate it difrectly from his hand or not matters not. "by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith" they became one dead flock.

"This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor," defending them by allowing them to continue to preach heresy.

"The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon" If Honorius gave Sergius and company a pass, who was to condemn them?

"And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff"? Rather, those who did not stray from the genuine path of truth lived to see St. Sophronius, not Honorius, vindicated in Ecumenical Council.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

...the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

I dont understand this. Why would his anathema depend on whether he spoke ex cathedra? The council made no mention of papal infalability or speaking ex cathedra. The council simply said he was a heretic and anathematized him. The EO and RC consider that council to be valid. To me, that means a few things.

1). The pope does not have universal and supreme authority.2). Union with him is not necessary for orthodoxy. Only orthodoxy is necessary for orthodoxy.3). Honorius was a heretic.

Or it could mean that the council was in error when it anathematized him. Or if Hornorius really was a heretic, then he wasn't the Pope, so one need not be in communion with him.

Or he was pope of Rome, a heretic, in communion with heretics and not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the Ecumenical Council was correct (being infallible and irreformable, it would be) in anathematizing him.

For those Catholics and Orthodox who prefer something closer to the historical and doctrinal truth of the matter, in contradistinction to bluster the chronicle at the above link is trustworthy in terms of the documents discussed.

It really is a fascinating story and is one of the clear examples in history that subsequently has resulted in the muting of the unctuous tendency to anathematize people rather than ideas.

The idea that Honorius was a formal heretic by intent does not stand up in the face of documentary evidence. It is clear that Honorius had no intention of splitting the Church in fact he was stretching to find a way to keep the Church from splitting and by doing so he plunged his own pen in the well of material heresy, by the failure to affirm the truth, while also trying to find common ground in the argument of the action of the human will of the Son of God. Had he done both, his record in history would have been much cleaner.

The contemporary idea, oft expressed by those who are critical of the Catholic Church, that the primacy and infallibility of the Pope means that he can never make mistakes of judgment, or errors of any kind, is absolutely false. Nothing in the story of Honorius mitigates against the teaching of primacy and infallibility.

M.

I agree with most of what you said, except for the idea that Pope Honorius was guilty of material heresy. Being ambiguous and being a heretic are different things. Further, even now we recognize that those charged with the heresy fo monophysitism may have not been monophysites. Honorius, was probably not really guilty of the heresy that he was charged with as well.

According to the article on Honorius in the Catholic Encyclopedia online: "It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius. And it would be harsh to regard him as a "private heretic", for he admittedly had excellent intentions."http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm#VI

I don't agree with the article.

Why not. It is telling the truth. The anathema is of his public statement, not of the man, his personal beliefs or his intentions. That very fact makes the whole issue a non-issue with respect to the First Vatican Council and there are no documents to prove otherwise.

M.

I don't agree that he held to heretical beliefs because the statements that he makes are definitely ambiguos. He seems more concerned with prudent termonology than he is about defining a particular belief.

Why not. It is telling the truth. The anathema is of his public statement, not of the man, his personal beliefs or his intentions. That very fact makes the whole issue a non-issue with respect to the First Vatican Council and there are no documents to prove otherwise.M.

I don't agree that he held to heretical beliefs because the statements that he makes are definitely ambiguos. He seems more concerned with prudent termonology than he is about defining a particular belief.

What statements are you talking about, as Honorius' writings, like any other heretic, were consigned to the flames by the Fathers.

The Fathers, seeing the encyclical of Honorius to Sergius, "[found] in his letter to Sergius that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines."

The Calumny against Pope Honorius IHONORIUS I (625 - 638):THE SULLIED REPUTATION OF A HOLY [!? !?] POPE.St. Robert Bellarmine ended the sixth chapter of his fourth book about the spiritual power of the popes (Controversiarum De Summo Pontifice, Liber Quartus, De Potestate Spirituali, Caput VI) by noting “...that up to now no supreme Pontiff has ever been an haeretic, since it certainly cannot be proven of any of them that he was an haeretic: therefore it is a sign (from Heaven) that such a thing cannot happen”....But his longer historical research has been devoted to everything falsely pretended about the Monothelist deviation of Honorius I. For, there has been a crowd of people relentlessly blackening this Pope's pontifical actions before Bellarmine, afterwards, and up to now. Here is what Bellarmine says to begin with: The twenty third (slandered) one is Honorius I whom Nilus declares to have been a Monothelist . . . In the same way, the "Magdeburgenses centuries" . . . put him amidst manifest heretics: Melchior Cano, for example, did this.St. Robert then argues a long series of pros and cons. He gives all the details he has found true, and they fill seven large in-quarto pages. To make our summary clearer, we will divide his answers between those concerning the substance of Honorius' letters, and those concerning the proofs of numberless falsifications and forgeries that caused many people, especially during the Middle Ages, to believe that Honorius had been solemnly condemned by the Church.As St. Robert reports, all the scandalous stories started with the Sixth Synod of Constantinople (681-682), e.g. “That synod has condemned Honorius as an heretic (act. 13) and has burnt his letters”...Next, we cover his assertions and proofs that Honorius' letters to Sergius may have been tampered with by heretics, and then placed into the conciliar register. He first notes that: . . . the supposition would not be rash because pseudo-letters of pope Vigil and of Manna the Constantinopolitan Patriarch had previously been introduced into the records of the Fifth General Council. This has been testified in the 12th and 14th acts of the Sixth General Council, when the hoax was discovered as the Fathers read over the acts of the preceding Fifth Synod and found that files containing fabricated letters had been inserted. There would be nothing extraordinary if the same kind of forgers had falsified the register of the Sixth General Council.This, surely, is enough to convince sensible Christians that Honorius has never been an heretic. But because so much is made of the condemnation of this disciple of Gregory (Gregorius Magnus, i.e. St. Gregory the Great) by the so-called Sixth Synod of Constantinople, to satisfy interested readers' curiosity, let us go on with what Bellarmine says about it: No doubt the enemies of the Roman Church have achieved (this inclusion of) Honorius in the list of those condemned by the sixth council, as well as interpolating every charge invented against him in the conciliar register. That is what I demonstrate first of all through the testimony of Anastasius the librarian who reports in his “History” that (that particular) treachery really happened, according to the description of the Greek Theophanus Isaurus; secondly by reminding people that it was an almost universal practice among Greeks to falsify texts.

Coming from the see of the Donation of Constantine and the False Decretals, this last bit is quite rich indeed. Alas! for Bellarmine, after his defense of Honorius-in effect calling the Sixth Ecumenical Council a Robber Council, impuned its Fathers and forgers and its conclusions as worthless-the Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, the handbook of the Vatican's chancellary until the 11th century, full of denunciation of Honorius, was found a few years after Bellarmine's death.

Unfortunately for PA, Ultramontanism and Honorius, Bellarmine is not the court of appeal from the Ecumenical Council. The Fathers saw the evidence and rendered judgment, binding Honorius for his heresy.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

According to the article on Honorius in the Catholic Encyclopedia online: "It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius. And it would be harsh to regard him as a "private heretic", for he admittedly had excellent intentions."http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm#VI

...the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

I dont understand this. Why would his anathema depend on whether he spoke ex cathedra? The council made no mention of papal infalability or speaking ex cathedra. The council simply said he was a heretic and anathematized him. The EO and RC consider that council to be valid. To me, that means a few things.

1). The pope does not have universal and supreme authority.2). Union with him is not necessary for orthodoxy. Only orthodoxy is necessary for orthodoxy.3). Honorius was a heretic.

Or it could mean that the council was in error when it anathematized him. Or if Hornorius really was a heretic, then he wasn't the Pope, so one need not be in communion with him.

Or he was pope of Rome, a heretic, in communion with heretics and not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the Ecumenical Council was correct (being infallible and irreformable, it would be) in anathematizing him.

For those Catholics and Orthodox who prefer something closer to the historical and doctrinal truth of the matter, in contradistinction to bluster the chronicle at the above link is trustworthy in terms of the documents discussed.

It really is a fascinating story and is one of the clear examples in history that subsequently has resulted in the muting of the unctuous tendency to anathematize people rather than ideas.

The idea that Honorius was a formal heretic by intent does not stand up in the face of documentary evidence. It is clear that Honorius had no intention of splitting the Church in fact he was stretching to find a way to keep the Church from splitting and by doing so he plunged his own pen in the well of material heresy, by the failure to affirm the truth, while also trying to find common ground in the argument of the action of the human will of the Son of God. Had he done both, his record in history would have been much cleaner.

The contemporary idea, oft expressed by those who are critical of the Catholic Church, that the primacy and infallibility of the Pope means that he can never make mistakes of judgment, or errors of any kind, is absolutely false. Nothing in the story of Honorius mitigates against the teaching of primacy and infallibility.

M.

I agree with most of what you said, except for the idea that Pope Honorius was guilty of material heresy. Being ambiguous and being a heretic are different things. Further, even now we recognize that those charged with the heresy fo monophysitism may have not been monophysites. Honorius, was probably not really guilty of the heresy that he was charged with as well.

According to the article on Honorius in the Catholic Encyclopedia online: "It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius. And it would be harsh to regard him as a "private heretic", for he admittedly had excellent intentions."http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm#VI

I don't agree with the article.

Why not. It is telling the truth. The anathema is of his public statement, not of the man, his personal beliefs or his intentions. That very fact makes the whole issue a non-issue with respect to the First Vatican Council and there are no documents to prove otherwise.

M.

I don't agree that he held to heretical beliefs because the statements that he makes are definitely ambiguos. He seems more concerned with prudent termonology than he is about defining a particular belief.

We don't even need to split that hair. Truly.

I am out of this topic for the time being because it has slid down the hole into Wonderland, and my name ain't Alice yet!!

Well, given this, it is not hard to see how the Pope St. Agatho's Letter can be seen as ex cathdra. However, it is also easy to see how pope Honorius' letters, condemned explicitely by the Fifth Ecumenical Councils, also meet this criteria of ex cathedra.

It might be relevant to take a look at what some Catholic theologians have to say about ex cathedra and infallibility declarations. Father Sullivan is a leading theological authority on the magisterium, who wrote: Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church (Paulist, 1983) and Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Church Documents (Paulist, spring 1996).

Finally got a chance to look at your link. Rather odd that you pick a site

Quote

While Archbishop Bertone is second in charge of the CDF under the Prefect, Cardinal Ratzinger, his article cannot be described as an official document issued by the congregation. On the other hand, when the Secretary of the CDF publishes "theological observations" concerning the doctrinal weight of recent documents of the Roman magisterium, one can hardly ignore the likelihood that his views represent an understanding of the matter that is shared by the Cardinal Prefect and other members of the CDF. If this is the case, it would not be surprising if official documents emanating from Rome in the future were to give magisterial authority to opinions expressed in this article by Archbishop Bertone. Hence, his article deserves a careful reading. In this Note, I focus on what he says about the doctrinal weight of a papal statement affirming that a particular doctrine had been taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium.It is well known that such an affirmation has been made by the CDF in its Responsum ad dubium concerning the doctrine that the Church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood.(FN3) To my knowledge, this is the first time that the Roman magisterium has ever declared that a specific doctrine was taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium. When Pope Pius IX insisted that Catholic theologians must give their assent of faith not only to defined dogmas, but also to doctrines that are "handed on by the ordinary magisterium of the whole Church dispersed throughout the world as divinely revealed," he did not name any specific doctrine as falling in that category.(FN4) Nor did the First Vatican Council do so, when it declared that the assent of "divine and Catholic faith" must be given to doctrines which are proposed by the Church "by its ordinary and universal magisterium as divinely revealed and to be believed as such."(FN5) Vatican II spelled out the conditions under which the teaching of the ordinary universal magisterium would be infallible, but it did not specify which doctrines had been so taught.(FN6)Private theologians have not been so reticent. When they wrote manuals for the use of students, they usually assigned a "theological note" to each of their theses. While the note de fide definita was attached to "defined dogma," the note de fide without definita could mean that, in the judgment of the manualist, the doctrine was taught as of faith by the ordinary universal magisterium. More recently, some Catholic theologians have claimed that the wrongfulness of the use of artificial means of contraception has been taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium.(FN7) William E. May extended such a claim to the "core of Catholic moral teaching," when he wrote: "Vatican II definitely teaches that the magisterium does teach infallibly on questions of morality when specific conditions are met, and I submit that these conditions have been met with respect to the core of Catholic moral teaching concerning the inviolability of innocent human life, the evil of adultery and fornication and similar issues."(FN8)

With after nearly two centuries of these proclamations of infallibility, and still the Vatican's leading theological authorities on "infallibility" seem not to be able to tell us what is "infallibly" defined.

As I have said many a time, the dogma of papal infallibility has solved no problems but created many.

They can't tell what a present day pope of Rome teaches "infallibly," and yet we are supposed to trust their judgment over the Father of the Ecumenical Council on a pope of Rome whose writings do not survive and died over a millenium ago, in the "Dark Ages."

Quote

I repeat, then, that to my knowledge the Responsum ad dubium issued by the CDF in 1995 is the first official document of the Roman magisterium that has ever declared that a specific doctrine was taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium. While Pope John Paul II approved the publication of the Responsum and, as Cardinal Ratzinger has said, "actually wanted this text,"(FN12) it is still a statement of the CDF and not a papal declaration.

The letter of Honorius, however, was a papal declaration. Hence the topic of the article has no relevance to it. Perhaps it does for the acts of Honorius' legate at the council at Cyprus which led to the Ekthesis, but even then,, Honorius support, passive or active, in face of Pat. St. Sophronius active opposition, raised this above "ordinary magisterium" if that existed.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

On first glance, it would seem that we would agree with Pastor Aeternus in its beginning:

Quote

1. The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls [37], in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption, determined to build a Church in which, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one faith and charity.

2. Therefore, before he was glorified, he besought his Father, not for the apostles only, but also for those who were to believe in him through their word, that they all might be one as the Son himself and the Father are one [38].

3. So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39], even as he had been sent by the Father [40], in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.

but the devil is always in the details, and PA continues to give them.

Quote

4. In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.

5. Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the Church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation [41].

6. And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the Church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation, we judge it necessary, with the approbation of the Sacred Council, and for the protection, defense and growth of the Catholic flock, to propound the doctrine concerning the 1. institution, 2. permanence and 3. nature of the sacred and apostolic primacy, upon which the strength and coherence of the whole Church depends.

7. This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole Church.

8. Furthermore, we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord's flock.

It there is any doubts as to what was envisioned by this, the Roman Catechism, mandated by Trent and promulgated by Pope Pius V

Quote

The Church has but one ruler and one governor, the invisible one, Christ, whom the eternal Father hath made head over all the Church, which is his body; the visible one, the Pope, who, as legitimate successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, fills the Apostolic chair.

It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church. This St. Jerome clearly perceived and as clearly expressed when, in his work against Jovinian, he wrote: One is elected that, by the appointment of a head, all occasion of schism may be removed. In his letter to Pope Damasus the same holy Doctor writes: Away with envy, let the ambition of Roman grandeur cease! I speak to the successor of the fisherman, and to the disciple of the cross. Following no chief but Christ, I am united in communion with your Holiness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that on that rock is built the Church. Whoever will eat the lamb outside this house is profane; whoever is not in the ark of Noah shall perish in the .flood.

The same doctrine was long before established by Saints Irenaeus and Cyprian. The latter, speaking of the unity of the Church observes: The Lord said to Peter, I say to thee, Peter! thou art Peter: and upon this rock I will build my Church. He builds His Church on one. And although after His Resurrection He gave equal power to all His Apostles, saying: As the Father hath sent me, I also send you, receive ye the Holy Ghost; yet to make unity more manifest, He decided by His own authority that it should be derived from one alone, etc.

Again, Optatus of Milevi says: You cannot be excused on the score of ignorance, knowing as you do that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was first conferred on Peter, who occupied it as head of the Apostles; in order that in that one chair the unity of the Church might be preserved by all, and that the other Apostles might not claim each a chair for himself; so that now he who erects another in opposition to this single chair is a schismatic and a prevaricator.

Later on St. Basil wrote: Peter is made the foundation, because he says: Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God; and hears in reply that he is a rock. But although a rock, he is not such a rock as Christ; for Christ is truly an immovable rock, but Peter, only by virtue of that rock. For Jesus bestows His dignities on others; He is a priest, and He makes priests; a rock, and He makes a rock; what belongs to Himself, He bestows on His servants.

Lastly, St. Ambrose says: Because he alone of all of them professed (Christ) he was placed above all.

Should anyone object that the Church is content with one Head and one Spouse, Jesus Christ, and requires no other, the answer is obvious. For as we deem Christ not only the author of all the Sacraments, but also their invisible minister �� He it is who baptises, He it is who absolves, although men are appointed by Him the external ministers of the Sacraments �� so has He placed over His Church, which He governs by His invisible Spirit, a man to be His vicar and the minister of His power. A visible Church requires a visible head; therefore the Saviour appointed Peter head and pastor of all the faithful, when He committed to his care the feeding of all His sheep, in such ample terms that He willed the very same power of ruling and governing the entire Church to descend to Peter's successors.

PatriarchsIn the fourth degree come Patriarchs, that is to say, the first and highest of the Fathers. Formerly, besides the Roman Pontiff, there were in the universal Church only four Patriarchs, who, however, were not of equal dignity. Thus Constantinople, though it reached the patriarchal honour only after all the others, yet it obtained a higher rank by reason of being the capital of the Empire. Next in rank came the Patriarch of Alexandria, which Church had been founded by St. Mark the Evangelist by order of the Prince of the Apostles. The third was that of Antioch, where Peter fixed his first See. Finally, that of Jerusalem, a See first governed by James, the brother of our Lord.

The PopeAbove all these, the Catholic Church has always placed the Supreme Pontiff of Rome, whom Cyril of Alexandria, in the Council of Ephesus, named the Chief Bishop, Father and Patriarch of the whole world. He sits in that chair of Peter in which beyond every shadow of doubt the Prince of the Apostles sat to the end of his days, and hence it is that in him the Church recognises the highest degree of dignity, and a universality of jurisdiction derived, not from the decrees of men or Councils, but from God Himself. Wherefore he is the Father and guide of all the faithful, of all the Bishops, and of all the prelates, no matter how high their power and office; and as successor of St. Peter, as true and lawful Vicar of Christ our Lord, he governs the universal Church.From what has been said, therefore, pastors should teach what are the principal duties and functions of the various ecclesiastical orders and degrees, and also who is the minister of this Sacrament.

The Minister of Holy OrdersBeyond all doubt, it is to the Bishop that the administration (of orders) belongs, as is easily proved by the authority of Holy Scripture, by most certain tradition, by the testimony of all the Fathers, by the decrees of the Councils, and by the usage and practice of Holy Church.

It is true that permission has been granted to some abbots occasionally to administer those orders that are minor and not sacred; yet there is no doubt whatever that it is the proper office of the Bishop, and of the Bishop alone to confer the orders called holy or major.

To ordain subdeacons, deacons and priests, one Bishop suffices; but in accordance with an Apostolic tradition that has been always observed in the Church, Bishops are consecrated by three Bishops.

The Roman Catechism, PA, and the CCC (which Lord willing we will get to) are wrong, of course, but before I get into that, I'll tie these claims, given the merger of the threads, to the case against Honorius.

In the words of the CE

Quote

Pope (625-12 October, 638), a , consecrated 27 October (Duchesne) or 3 November (Jaffé, Mann), in succession to Boniface V.

Quote

The origin of the Monothelite controversy is thus related by Sergius in his letter to Pope Honorius. When the Emperor Heraclius in the course of the war which he began about 619, came to Theodosiopolis (Erzeroum) in Armenia (about 622), a Monophysite named Paul, a leader of the Acephali, made a speech before him in favour of his heresy. The emperor refuted him with theological arguments, and incidentally made use of the expression "one operation" of Christ. Later on (about 626) he inquired of Cyrus, Bishop of Phasis and metropolitan of the Lazi, whether his words were correct. Cyrus was uncertain, and by the emperor's order wrote to Sergius the Patriarch of Constantinople, whom Heraclius greatly trusted, for advice. Sergius in reply sent him a letter said to have been written by Mennas of Constantinople to Pope Vigilius and approved by the latter, in which several authorities were cited for one operation and one will. This letter was afterwards declared to be a forgery and was admitted to be such at the Sixth General Council. Nothing more occurred, according to Sergius, until in June, 631, Cyrus was promoted by the emperor to the See of Alexandria...

In 631 Cyrus took the throne of Alexandria as his reward, and on the basis of the monoenergist formula many miaphysites were received into his patriarchate. Negotiations were begun in 629 with the miaphyisite Patriarch Athanasius of Antioch, who entered into union with the Patriarchy, taking the see of Antioch, on the basis of the formula "two united natures in Christ, one will and one activity." The Catholicos of All Armenia was brought into back into union with the Pentarchy at the Synod of Theodosiopolis (Karin/Erzerum) in 633 on the basis of the monoenergist formula. Arcadius of Cyprus received the dogma in 623, and ascended to head the Church of Cyprus and lead it into heresy in 630 (so I remembered incorrectly on Cyprus' record).

So what?

Well, if Honorius ascended the apostolic throne of St. Peter in 630, then, according to PA, all authority in the Church flowed from him. Which means he is responsible for Cyrus becoming Pope of Alexandria, for Athanasius entering into union (as the papal assent, to judge from Lyons, Florence, Brest, Uzhhorod, etc, is necessary) as the Patriarch of Antioch, for the Armenian Catholicate entering into union via heresy with Rome, and Arcadius taking over Cyprus. And if, when EP Sergius wrote to him, Honorius, " in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority," using "this gift of truth and never-failing faith [being] therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error" instead of taking the opportunity to depose the bishops misusing their authority to teach heresy-as, according to PA, they were "bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world"-instead of Orthodoxy, Honorius faciliated heresy as well as Sergius did.

"Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body." Honorius, receiving Cyrus, Athanasius, Arcadius etc. as members of the body of which he, Honorius, was head, did "abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received" and being "in agreement with" the other heresiarchs usurping the thrones of the Pentarchy, effectively lead the Roman Church into heresy. He who does not gather, scatters. Instead of making "sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received"

Honorius, if he had the powers PA claims, left the shepherds in place who were poisoning the sheep. Whether they ate it difrectly from his hand or not matters not. "by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith" they became one dead flock.

"This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor," defending them by allowing them to continue to preach heresy.

"The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon" If Honorius gave Sergius and company a pass, who was to condemn them?

"And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff"? Rather, those who did not stray from the genuine path of truth lived to see St. Sophronius, not Honorius, vindicated in Ecumenical Council.

I am sorry. This is all just your reading into the teaching what you want to make of it. You take it to the extremities of absurd misreading and then argue it.

You'd no more get away with this kind of debating tactic in the secular world than fly to the moon.

No right minded Catholic is going to join you in this kind of exercise....eh Papist?....LOL

You take it to the extremities of absurd misreading and then argue it.

I agree that this is extreme:

Quote

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff

No right minded Catholic is going to join you in this kind of exercise....eh Papist?....LOL

A right minded Catholic is Orthodox.

« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 04:25:04 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Indeed the "extreme" is part of a tactics that is used by RC very cunningly. It works thus:

1) they make extreme statements of authority for the pope;

2) during historical periods the RC is secularly weak, these statements are not to be taken literally in their secular meaning. All opposition to it is depicted as deriving from the pettiness of mind of the critics, after all the pope is not up to conquer the world; they act diplomatically and with talks of approximation;

3) when, for cyclical reasons, the RC becomes secularly strong again those extreme statements are to be taken literally and enforced by arms if necessary. The "brothers" with approximation was fulfilled are forced to become subjects. With this they increase their power and position in the world. This is the time to make even bolder statements that shall be described as a mistake by the next weak phase and considered to be the basis for bolder statements in the next strong phase. Go back to (1).

If you thought "one step back, two forward", you got it right. That is why some of the most "shocking" old statements about papal authority are not on the Vatican website now, why some titles are not being in use but not abolished. As soon as the RC get some real political power back, all those will be remembered and enforced.

Logged

Many energies, three persons, two natures, one God, one Church, one Baptism.

You take it to the extremities of absurd misreading and then argue it.

I agree that this is extreme:

Quote

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff

Indeed the "extreme" is part of a tactics that is used by RC very cunningly. It works thus:

1) they make extreme statements of authority for the pope;

2) during historical periods the RC is secularly weak, these statements are not to be taken literally in their secular meaning. All opposition to it is depicted as deriving from the pettiness of mind of the critics, after all the pope is not up to conquer the world; they act diplomatically and with talks of approximation;

3) when, for cyclical reasons, the RC becomes secularly strong again those extreme statements are to be taken literally and enforced by arms if necessary. The "brothers" with approximation was fulfilled are forced to become subjects. With this they increase their power and position in the world. This is the time to make even bolder statements that shall be described as a mistake by the next weak phase and considered to be the basis for bolder statements in the next strong phase. Go back to (1).

If you thought "one step back, two forward", you got it right. That is why some of the most "shocking" old statements about papal authority are not on the Vatican website now, why some titles are not being in use but not abolished. As soon as the RC get some real political power back, all those will be remembered and enforced.

...the hair splitting to cut Honorius free of the anathemas binding him depend on Honorios not speaking ex cathedra.

I dont understand this. Why would his anathema depend on whether he spoke ex cathedra? The council made no mention of papal infalability or speaking ex cathedra. The council simply said he was a heretic and anathematized him. The EO and RC consider that council to be valid. To me, that means a few things.

1). The pope does not have universal and supreme authority.2). Union with him is not necessary for orthodoxy. Only orthodoxy is necessary for orthodoxy.3). Honorius was a heretic.

Or it could mean that the council was in error when it anathematized him. Or if Hornorius really was a heretic, then he wasn't the Pope, so one need not be in communion with him.

And the winner is, the Blue Pill : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-odXzS6wTE

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Indeed the "extreme" is part of a tactics that is used by RC very cunningly. It works thus:

1) they make extreme statements of authority for the pope;

2) during historical periods the RC is secularly weak, these statements are not to be taken literally in their secular meaning. All opposition to it is depicted as deriving from the pettiness of mind of the critics, after all the pope is not up to conquer the world; they act diplomatically and with talks of approximation;

3) when, for cyclical reasons, the RC becomes secularly strong again those extreme statements are to be taken literally and enforced by arms if necessary. The "brothers" with approximation was fulfilled are forced to become subjects. With this they increase their power and position in the world. This is the time to make even bolder statements that shall be described as a mistake by the next weak phase and considered to be the basis for bolder statements in the next strong phase. Go back to (1).

If you thought "one step back, two forward", you got it right. That is why some of the most "shocking" old statements about papal authority are not on the Vatican website now, why some titles are not being in use but not abolished. As soon as the RC get some real political power back, all those will be remembered and enforced.

"All opposition to it is depicted as deriving from the pettiness of mind of the critics"

Wait a couple of decades, a century or so. Go to (3).

Logged

Many energies, three persons, two natures, one God, one Church, one Baptism.

You take it to the extremities of absurd misreading and then argue it.

I agree that this is extreme:

Quote

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Unfortunately, Mary, historically, the RC has used the various tones in different documents as it was convenient in each historical periods.

There is an even more radical case of that. When it was caught outright falsefying arguments (the false donations and pseudo-isidore for example) it simply pretends that the increase in papal power caused by these falsifications was not due to them, although history *proves* it was. And by the way, we are not blameless in that since it seems that was done with some Romaic imperial backing to "help" the papacy against the barbarians.

Logged

Many energies, three persons, two natures, one God, one Church, one Baptism.